atheists

[Kerry]

of course not, you are carnally minded and cannot understand the Spirit. Just as you cannot understand the bible, unless it has been opened to you by the Spirit. I realise that you cannot understand that as well. But Christ died for you and was resurrected that you might be saved if you will accept Him. This is not a religion, nor is it science nor the intellect of man.

It is your creator that saw there was no hope for man and became a man Himself and sacrificed His life for yours. it sounds like a fairy tale but happens to be the truth. It takes less faith for this than evolution. Come on you came from some sludge that was struck by lighting are you frankenstein son or does that gorilla in Africa call you son or maybe that fish that learned to to breath air. You were created by God and He died to save you, why reject Him, so you can do what you want to do and be your own God? you might as well cut down a tree and carve it into an image and worship it so you can have no accountability. I mean thats the goal right?

 

[IntoTheVoid]

I am accountable for my actions. I'm accountable to me, my family and my boss. My actions always have repercussions, I'm not exempt from that.

I've also never discussed evolution on here and you don't know my take on it

 

[Kerry]

I am accountable for my actions. I'm accountable to me, my family and my boss. My actions always have repercussions, I'm not exempt from that.

I've also never discussed evolution on here and you don't know my take on it

Why do you feel accountable to them? Most animals will kill there children as they see them as a threat. What cause you to care for them, It is animal instinct to impregnate as many females as possible. so why aren't you taking in every harlot that you can?

 

[IntoTheVoid]

Why do you feel accountable to them? Most animals will kill there children as they see them as a threat. What cause you to care for them, It is animal instinct to impregnate as many females as possible. so why aren't you taking in every harlot that you can?

So what your telling me is, if it was proven tomorrow that god doesn't exist... This is how you would behave?

 

[Kerry]

Okay I'm out. Goodnight and God bless. Look closely my friend you are not your own and are accountable to someone other than your wife and kids, otherwise you would not think of yourself as accountable to them, but hey many don't nowadays. My cousin has children by two different women and never sees any of them. He is a sad sapp when I see him. Reckon why?

 

[IntoTheVoid]

Thanks for not answering my question

 

[Kreation]

Thanks for not answering my question

Lol intothevoid. im messaging you via pm. Can I ask....don't you ever sleep?! lol are you in the UK?

 

[IntoTheVoid]

I don't think i do lol

Yeah I'm in the UK. Didn't get to sleep til about half three lat night then my son came barging into my room at 8 lol

 

[TheAristocat]

No problem.

Abiogenesis: Abiogenesis or biopoiesis is a natural process by which life arises from simple organic compounds. The earliest life on Earth existed at least 3.5 billion years ago, during the Eoarchean Era when sufficient crust had solidified following the molten Hadean Eon (from Wikipedia).

This would be my view of how and when life most likely arose on Earth. There is plenty of evidence life existed that long ago, not so many ideas on how the process came about – yet.

Meteor impacts? Not sure what you want to talk about here. It’s clear meteors and comets do bring to Earth compounds and elements necessary to life on Earth. If the astronomers are correct Earth actually formed by accretion of material in the solar cloud. I accept this theory as well.

Evolution – for me it is a given.


If you like.

No one has yet demonstrated how life originated but there is ample research showing that all, or most, of the necessary components that comprise a living organism are formed naturally by a host of processes on Earth, or are delivered to Earth with comets, asteroids and meteors. That biologists haven’t yet figured out, in detail, how life formed naturally is not an argument against them making the discovery in the future. Many creationists make this erroneous claim.

************

Here I’ve been going on making the assumption you are a creationist. Am I correct? If so, are you the Old Earth or the Young Earth variety?

Well, it's been a while since I've discussed these topics. My memory is a bit rusty, and I'd like to brush up on them. As to the meteor impacts... I'll have to get back to you on that one. But there was a reason I wanted to ask you about them, namely one that deals with the time frame it took for life to arise and evolve and if that could have occurred while the Earth was being turned into liquid rock by planetoid-sized objects.

That there's insufficient evidence but in the future there might be sufficient evidence - this sort of argument doesn't really mean a lot. And I don't believe atheists would let a fundamentalist Christian off the hook with that one in a debate. But like I said, this isn't a debate. I'm more so looking for your opinion on these topics. And I appreciate your input.

 

[Cycel]

Well, it's been a while since I've discussed these topics. My memory is a bit rusty, and I'd like to brush up on them.

No problem. I am always learning something new myself. Someone was talking about ring species as an evidence for evolution the other day and I thought, “Ring species? What’s that?” I asked my son and he explained it to me. Usually it’s me explaining something about evolution to him.

As to the meteor impacts... I'll have to get back to you on that one. But there was a reason I wanted to ask you about them, namely one that deals with the time frame it took for life to arise and evolve and if that could have occurred while the Earth was being turned into liquid rock by planetoid-sized objects.

Which is why there is a gap between the time earth formed and the first appearance of life. Rocks have been found that are about 4.5 billion years of age thus providing the estimate of 4.5 billion years as the age of the Earth; but the first evidence of life appears about 3.5 billion years ago, giving Earth some billion years to cool and form a solid crust. At least that is what this one article in Wikapedia reported. I think I have seen older dates for the first appearance of life. The basic assumption now is, the moment Earth cooled sufficiently to support liquid water life formed.

That there's insufficient evidence but in the future there might be sufficient evidence - this sort of argument doesn't really mean a lot.

I want to query you further on this, just to make sure I understand your meaning.

Many creationists take absence of knowledge in a field of science as evidence of God’s involvement. I’m always having to set the record straight. So, for example, just because biologists can’t explain at this moment precisely how the first self-replicating life arose doesn’t mean they won’t have an explanation in the future. So lack of knowledge on how life arose is not evidence that God created the first replicating life forms. If there is a God he might well have done so, but our not having an explanation for how life arose naturally cannot be construed as evidence that God must then have been the creator.

Do you agree with my position?

And I don't believe atheists would let a fundamentalist Christian off the hook with that one in a debate. But like I said, this isn't a debate. I'm more so looking for your opinion on these topics. And I appreciate your input.

I don’t mind providing my opinion. It’s a lot easier than having to come up with sources in a proper debate. Sources I have, but they are time consuming to look up.

Aristocat, I see you are a fundamentalist. Are you an Old Earth or a Young Earth creationist?

 

[megaman125]

Many creationists take absence of knowledge in a field of science as evidence of God’s involvement.

Intelligent design isn't based on what we don't know, it's based on what we do know.

 

[TheAristocat]

Many creationists take absence of knowledge in a field of science as evidence of God’s involvement. I’m always having to set the record straight. So, for example, just because biologists can’t explain at this moment precisely how the first self-replicating life arose doesn’t mean they won’t have an explanation in the future. So lack of knowledge on how life arose is not evidence that God created the first replicating life forms. If there is a God he might well have done so, but our not having an explanation for how life arose naturally cannot be construed as evidence that God must then have been the creator.

Do you agree with my position?

I wonder if you feel the ancients would be justified in believing in the creation myths of their respective gods in the absence of evidence, using the logic that what is created must have a creator. Or perhaps you would be of the opinion that they should have withheld judgment without proper verifiable evidence. But in the absence of evidence, my belief is that it's currently undecided how life first began. And if that is true, then to teach one way as fact is to indoctrinate. To present different opinions on the origin of life is to educate.

Aristocat, I see you are a fundamentalist. Are you an Old Earth or a Young Earth creationist?

I'm not sure that I could be called a Fundamentalist in the traditional sense. Because, while I believe the creation account of the six days is literal, those days have a self-contained definition within Genesis that didn't necessarily mean what it means today. It would be like saying, "I made the world in six days. By the way, a day consists only of daylight." So how long is a day? According to that definition a day would be six months long at the poles, since the sun never sets for six months. So how would a divine being communicate the passage of time to the first human beings so that they could understand it in a way that made sense to them? By using the terms "evening" and "morning" which were and still are pretty well defined by natural processes. It's like saying, "How do we define the speed of light?" We define it by a natural process/natural laws.

But still using the concept of "evening" and "morning" we get different periods of time at different locations on the Earth. So how long are these days? Well, they're exactly one period of time from evening to morning in length. How long is that?

Genesis 1:5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

What do evening and morning mark? A period of day and night. What is the day? Light. What is the night? Darkness. So essentially what do we have? We have a whole day being defined as a period of darkness and light. As you can see that doesn't necessarily indicate a 24-hour period of time. So the jury's out on that one.

 

[Starcrash]

Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins.
Ecclesiastes 7:20

There's no such thing as a "good person" in the Bible, because everyone has sinned.

Again, this shows exactly what I've claimed about Christian knowledge -- many Christians don't make any attempt to observe the world, but rather assume that the bible writers already did it for them and wrote about it. You would be among them.

It's easy to see people "doing good"... just define what good is and then see if anyone does it. I suspect, though, that out of sheer interest in keeping the bible non-contradictory that you define good in such a way that it doesn't fit anyone's actual definition of good, instead opting for a condition that nobody could achieve.

 

[TheAristocat]

Again, this shows exactly what I've claimed about Christian knowledge -- many Christians don't make any attempt to observe the world, but rather assume that the bible writers already did it for them and wrote about it. You would be among them.

It's easy to see people "doing good"... just define what good is and then see if anyone does it. I suspect, though, that out of sheer interest in keeping the bible non-contradictory that you define good in such a way that it doesn't fit anyone's actual definition of good, instead opting for a condition that nobody could achieve.

The qualifier "and never sins" is certainly an important one.

 

[megaman125]

The qualifier "and never sins" is certainly an important one.

Yes, but they're trying to ignore that part because it's easier for them to argue over semantics as a waste of time than to acknowledge what we all know already.

Again, this shows exactly what I've claimed about Christian knowledge -- many Christians don't make any attempt to observe the world, but rather assume that the bible writers already did it for them and wrote about it. You would be among them.

Oh look, more typical nonesense. It's a fact that there isn't any person on earth (aside from Jesus) that doesn't sin.

It's easy to see people "doing good"... just define what good is and then see if anyone does it. I suspect, though, that out of sheer interest in keeping the bible non-contradictory that you define good in such a way that it doesn't fit anyone's actual definition of good, instead opting for a condition that nobody could achieve.

Oh look, trying to change the subject. I wasn't talking about "doing good," the subject was about the concept of being a "good person" and how there is no such thing as a good and sinless person.

 

[Cycel]

Many creationists take absence of knowledge in a field of science as evidence of God’s involvement.

Intelligent design isn't based on what we don't know, it's based on what we do know.

I wasn't referencing Intelligent Design. I was speaking of those who take the absence of a scientific explanation as a raison d'etre to slip God in as the explanation. It's the God of the Gaps argument.

 

[danschance]

Again, this shows exactly what I've claimed about Christian knowledge -- many Christians don't make any attempt to observe the world, but rather assume that the bible writers already did it for them and wrote about it. You would be among them.

It's easy to see people "doing good"... just define what good is and then see if anyone does it. I suspect, though, that out of sheer interest in keeping the bible non-contradictory that you define good in such a way that it doesn't fit anyone's actual definition of good, instead opting for a condition that nobody could achieve.

Your assumptions about Christians seem to be more about your own prejudice and personal bias than about facts and reality.

 

[Cycel]

Again, this shows exactly what I've claimed about Christian knowledge -- many Christians don't make any attempt to observe the world, but rather assume that the bible writers already did it for them and wrote about it.

Starcrash, Avlon is a Christian yet this is not his view. He thinks as we do. He takes the secular, scientific approach, as do individuals such as Francis Collins – who otherwise describes himself as an evangelical Christian. I think the people you are speaking of are the creationists. They are the ones, alone, who see the teaching of evolution, biology, geology, chemistry, astronomy and so on as a threat to their understanding of Genesis; and this is the key, as I see it. They reject our understanding of the world precisely because it conflicts with Genesis and not for any other reason. It is the framework upon which their denial of contemporary science is based. Other Christians, such as Avlon and Collins, see no threat to their belief in God coming from science. Unless I am wrong, they perceive science as showcasing the wonders of God's universe. Who could deny that if there is a God he could tweak the natural laws to produce the outcome he wanted and none of the rest of us would be any the wiser.

 

[megaman125]

I wasn't referencing Intelligent Design. I was speaking of those who take the absence of a scientific explanation as a raison d'etre to slip God in as the explanation. It's the God of the Gaps argument.

It doesn't matter if it's a known scientific explaination or the absence of one, God is involved either way.

 

[Cycel]

Many creationists take absence of knowledge in a field of science as evidence of God’s involvement. I’m always having to set the record straight. So, for example, just because biologists can’t explain at this moment precisely how the first self-replicating life arose doesn’t mean they won’t have an explanation in the future. So lack of knowledge on how life arose is not evidence that God created the first replicating life forms. If there is a God he might well have done so, but our not having an explanation for how life arose naturally cannot be construed as evidence that God must then have been the creator.

Do you agree with my position?

I wonder if you feel the ancients would be justified in believing in the creation myths of their respective gods in the absence of evidence, using the logic that what is created must have a creator.

I think rather than saying the ancients were justified in believing in their creation myths I would say they had little other choice. The only other options were other peoples myths. Once we get our head around the fact that they had no concept they were even on a planet moving around a star, which was following its own course around one of countless billions of galaxies -- in a universe that even today we do not know the nature of -- only then can we begin to appreciate that they had no framework upon which to construct any semblance of a scientific theory of their own origin, and so turned over their creation to the only force they thought could accomplish such a feat -- their gods.

Or perhaps you would be of the opinion that they should have withheld judgment without proper verifiable evidence.

Withhold judgement? No, in the absence of any reason to believe their gods were false, why would they do such a thing? A wall fresco of Christ in a chariot pulling the sun across the sky, in imitation of Apollo, has been found in the Christian catacombs beneath the Vatican. Paganism died slowly (though some argument may be made that it still survives). No, people do not give up their gods easily, nor do they easily abstain from forming judgements; and why should they when they believe the gods are real?

But in the absence of evidence, my belief is that it's currently undecided how life first began. And if that is true, then to teach one way as fact is to indoctrinate. To present different opinions on the origin of life is to educate.

Here's the thing, researchers have already determined how the chemical precursors of life formed on our planet. We know how they got here. The next step in the process is determining how the first self-replicating chemicals formed. We may not be talking about living organisms yet, only self-replicating molecules. The point is we will be working from a data base of testable knowledge. You want to put sacred scripture up against testable hypotheses? You do that and you have to be willing to put Genesis under the microscope. You will have to treat it as you would any written work produced by men and subject it to rigorous critical examination. My experience so far is that most creationists are very reluctant to even discus the subject with me. Do you want to see what I am talking about? Do yourself a favour, if you haven't already done so, and get a copy of Richard Friedman’s, Who Wrote the Bible. The book is required reading in most seminaries.

I have no objection to the creation account being taught in school so long as it is kept in the religious classroom. The creation story is not a scientific theory. It has no place in the science classroom.