-
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.
DNA wasn't the topic of discussion. The questions were about the evolution of eyes and testicles; Darwin spoke about eyes specifically and evolution of testicles is similarly well-known.
There are several mechanisms by which a cell with DNA could develop from non-living matter simply by the rules of physics and chemistry. The dominant hypothesis now is that RNA formed first and was eventually supplemented by DNA in more advanced creatures. There is certainly nothing preventing this from happening; the Miller-Urey experiment and its successors show the mechanism quite clearly.
Please watch this and indicate your objections, if any:
3 - The Origin of Life Made Easy - YouTube
There are several mechanisms by which a cell with DNA could develop from non-living matter simply by the rules of physics and chemistry. The dominant hypothesis now is that RNA formed first and was eventually supplemented by DNA in more advanced creatures. There is certainly nothing preventing this from happening; the Miller-Urey experiment and its successors show the mechanism quite clearly.
Please watch this and indicate your objections, if any:
3 - The Origin of Life Made Easy - YouTube
The disrespect goes both ways, because neither atheism nor theism forces a person to be respectful. And it's easy to find examples of disrespect, especially in the form of insults and name-calling, on both Christian and atheist forums, from both Christian and Atheist sources. While such cruelty seems like it ought not to come from Christians (because they claim to honor a holy book that commands them to love their enemies), becoming a Christian doesn't prevent a person from sinning.
Some atheists embrace moral systems such as ethics or humanism. I myself find that the golden rule is very easy to follow and typically leads to a morality that most people (including Christians) embrace. But atheism isn't a religious system -- there are no universal practices. While the consequences of having a bad reputation keep most people in line publicly, there is nothing keeping some atheists (and yes, even some Christians) from immoral behavior that they feel they can "get away with".
Some atheists embrace moral systems such as ethics or humanism. I myself find that the golden rule is very easy to follow and typically leads to a morality that most people (including Christians) embrace. But atheism isn't a religious system -- there are no universal practices. While the consequences of having a bad reputation keep most people in line publicly, there is nothing keeping some atheists (and yes, even some Christians) from immoral behavior that they feel they can "get away with".
Last edited:
Dan, let’s have a look at what you’ve accomplished. You had meant to make a splash in presenting a logical argument that would force the atheist to sit up and take notice. ‘If he has not searched the entire physical universe for God, then how can the atheist be certain the deity does not exist?’ But, as I point out, if you are going to rely on this “reasoning to confirm the possible existence of God then you must also apply the same logic to every other god or spirit that mankind has ever thought existed. You cannot reasonably deny any of them; not if you are going to remain true to this same logic.” If you deny the possible existence of other gods or spirits then essentially you have emasculated the argument and made it worthless. It either applies to all gods or to none, otherwise everyone is free to exclude from its net those things that they do not believe in; and the atheist is equally free to deny the existence of God. So, deny the possible existence of other gods in the parts of the physical universe you have not examined and the atheist is free to think you don’t take your own argument very seriously.
Either the argument you presented carries weight or it does not. It must include all gods as possibly existing, even for yourself, or it becomes a meaningless argument. If you retreat into faith and deny that other gods and spirits might exist then you deny the logic of your own reasoning. Perhaps it’s time to put this argument to bed.
Either the argument you presented carries weight or it does not. It must include all gods as possibly existing, even for yourself, or it becomes a meaningless argument. If you retreat into faith and deny that other gods and spirits might exist then you deny the logic of your own reasoning. Perhaps it’s time to put this argument to bed.
It's not really a fair comparison. Just because someone says that they would kill for God doesn't prove they'd actually do it, and certainly no one gets hurt from the assertion alone. Plus, I think this commits the fallacy of relative privation to assume that her problems are unimportant simply because bigger problems exist.
While I believe it is true that life arose naturally on Earth and was not derived from 'special creation', I don't think there are as yet any solid ideas about how this happened.
While researchers seem agreed that DNA arose from RNA, I don't think the mechanism that produced the first RNA is yet understood.
I don't think this is true. This experiment shows that the building blocks of life can likely form naturally, but it doesn't provide the mechanism behind the origin of self-replicating organisms.
While researchers seem agreed that DNA arose from RNA, I don't think the mechanism that produced the first RNA is yet understood.
I don't think this is true. This experiment shows that the building blocks of life can likely form naturally, but it doesn't provide the mechanism behind the origin of self-replicating organisms.
Avlon, I jumped to the wrong conclusion in thinking you were an atheist. Sorry about that. 
It must look as though I have been disagreeing with everything you have written. I just want to take a moment to say that appearances can be deceiving. I actually agree with much you've said; I just haven't been terribly vocal about. Oh, I looked up Evidentialism in Wikipedia. I have a better understanding now of where your coming from.
It must look as though I have been disagreeing with everything you have written. I just want to take a moment to say that appearances can be deceiving. I actually agree with much you've said; I just haven't been terribly vocal about. Oh, I looked up Evidentialism in Wikipedia.
I have a better understanding now of where your coming from.Not really CoooCaw. Though there are no solid hypotheses on the origin of the first life forms, that I know of, evolution itself is well established by a plethora of evidence. Don't confuse the origin of life with evolution. Evolution explains the abundance of different life forms on Earth and their rise from other organisms, but it says nothing about how life first originated. That is not what evolution claims to do.
I am telling you that I don't know how life originated and you are calling that blind faith? Blind faith is believing that you know how life originated in the absence of any physical evidence to support your claim. When you assert that God created life, that is not evidence. When you quote scripture to show God created life you are only quoting an author making a faith claim. You have to distinguish between a faith claim and actual evidence. Biblical scripture makes faith claims. It presents no actual physical evidence about the origin of life. In fact if we examine the Genesis account I can show you that the creation story is not what you think it is.
I am telling you that I don't know how life originated and you are calling that blind faith? Blind faith is believing that you know how life originated in the absence of any physical evidence to support your claim. When you assert that God created life, that is not evidence. When you quote scripture to show God created life you are only quoting an author making a faith claim. You have to distinguish between a faith claim and actual evidence. Biblical scripture makes faith claims. It presents no actual physical evidence about the origin of life. In fact if we examine the Genesis account I can show you that the creation story is not what you think it is.
I guess it depends on what you mean by 'understood'. One of the earliest steps in life would be a "self-replicating polymer", and we have strong evidence that they existed because they never went away -- the entire ocean is teeming with them. We can't be certain that life developed from them... the small odds of forming life mean that we could watch a gallon of oceanwater filled with these polymers for centuries and it's unlikely we'd ever see life start. This is the main problem of ever knowing for certain how life began, because if it arises naturally we'd never see it and if we tried to force it somehow then we'd be called out for making it happen in faked conditions.
However, it's still possible to observe it happening, however unlikely or improbable. Creationism, on the other hand, will never be observed.
However, it's still possible to observe it happening, however unlikely or improbable. Creationism, on the other hand, will never be observed.
K
Atheist are atheist because they want to be atheist and ignore the many proofs of the word of God. You might as well cut down a tree and carve it then worship it. that is what the atheist did in bible times. So they could feel good about doing their own thing and not be held accountable for their actions or so they thought.
C
It's not about comparison. If she wants to blanket all atheists based on the actions of two people then why can't anyone else do the same?
That right there was dumb.
This right here
That is like saying: "If Joe can rob a bank then I should be able to rob a bank to, to make things fair."
made me ROFL so true!!
That right there was dumb.
This right here
That is like saying: "If Joe can rob a bank then I should be able to rob a bank to, to make things fair."
made me ROFL so true!!
S
I never said "All atheist are going straight to hell whereas christians surely end up in heaven" or anything - I just shared two events in my life where I felt treated very disrespectfully by them. Apparently you missed the last part of my former post, which clearly states I do not believe that all of them are this stereotypical atheists that hate on christians.
For your information: my own brother is an atheist. And guess what? We get along just fine and I enjoy our discussions on our different perspectves of life. I have many friends from who have different believes and I am absolutely fine with that - as long as we all treat each other with respect.
For your information: my own brother is an atheist. And guess what? We get along just fine and I enjoy our discussions on our different perspectves of life. I have many friends from who have different believes and I am absolutely fine with that - as long as we all treat each other with respect.