-
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.
- Status
G
well you are right in saying that I have no respect in a lie..even if the lie has been fed to us for generations, besides, I have seen and heard enough evidence (for me)to prove evolution is just that...a big lie!...once you, and I pray you will, come to know Jesus Christ AND have His Holy Spirit, then and ONLY then will you realize the foolishness of man.
...I think the foolishness of man is pretty obvious whether you believe in Jesus or not. The problem is we need more people to understand how Jesus is the solution.
The fact that so many of Jesus professed followers are all RAGH, EVOLUTION BAD! it sort of undermines their credibility. When it's really not an issue that matters. So yeah.
The fact that so many of Jesus professed followers are all RAGH, EVOLUTION BAD! it sort of undermines their credibility. When it's really not an issue that matters. So yeah.
C
But, but, 'evolution' is bad, it's false, its sceintifically unfounded, it is illogical, it's a fraud, a lie, satanic doctrine of the worst order that has crept up through the very grates of hell to be rammed down the throats of innocent children and the unwise and foolish lacking guidence. Evolution preys on the innocent and biblically uneducated and the science deficient, evolution is anti-science! Its anti-life, its anti-God, it's a terminal lie...
So yea it matters.
So yea it matters.
No, no, I was just going to see if you were going to say "Just kidding" or something. You never can tell. Okay, here we go:
One: Evolution has nothing to do with the existence of God. It is a scientific theory based on the evidence we have available to us at the present. It's been tested by many experiments and never disproven. It does not purport to explain the origins or the reasoning behind the universe. It simply attempts to describe the 'how'. It is not incompatible with divine Creation, it simply seeks to describe the method.
Two: The Bible has no bearing on science. Science deals with things that can be imperially observed. If the world was created in six days, science can never reveal this to us because that is by default a supernatural act. Science can only guess based on what we can observe in the hear and now.
Three: The majority of Scientists believe in God regardless of their opinion of evolution.
Four: Millions of people accept the theory of evolution and suffer no detrimental effects, believers and non-believers alike.The fact that evolution has been used to justify elitism based on genetics is irrelevant to the accuracy of the theory. The Bible has likewise been used to justify racism and other evils too. Anything can be misused, but that doesn't mean it's bad in its proper use.
One: Evolution has nothing to do with the existence of God. It is a scientific theory based on the evidence we have available to us at the present. It's been tested by many experiments and never disproven. It does not purport to explain the origins or the reasoning behind the universe. It simply attempts to describe the 'how'. It is not incompatible with divine Creation, it simply seeks to describe the method.
Two: The Bible has no bearing on science. Science deals with things that can be imperially observed. If the world was created in six days, science can never reveal this to us because that is by default a supernatural act. Science can only guess based on what we can observe in the hear and now.
Three: The majority of Scientists believe in God regardless of their opinion of evolution.
Four: Millions of people accept the theory of evolution and suffer no detrimental effects, believers and non-believers alike.The fact that evolution has been used to justify elitism based on genetics is irrelevant to the accuracy of the theory. The Bible has likewise been used to justify racism and other evils too. Anything can be misused, but that doesn't mean it's bad in its proper use.
Evolution in a general sense was proposed before Darwin, but not evolution by natural selection. Besides, many ancients also thought humanity was de-evolving.
Biological systems become more complicated, diverse, and sophisticated over time. We see this in the real world with bacteria and other microscopic organisms.
That's an oversimplification. The physical universe moves towards equilibrium--highly ordered systems require energy input to sustain, yes. Eventually the universe will fall apart because no new energy is being put into it. But God has provided away for biological organisms to GAIN energy--photosynthesis in plants, and the digestive system of animals. In the short term, biological organisms CAN become more complicated because more energy goes into them. Furthermore, the existence of God makes all this irrelevant because his Will alone is sufficient for biological life to defy the laws of thermodynamics.
...Um... Google around a bit.
What contradiction? "I believe God created the world. I believe he did so via the process of evolution." There is no contradiction here.
Well yes, but not only have modern theories of evolution been around for a relatively short time, but Jesus wisely pointed out that the majority is not always right. Furthermore I do believe in God and divine creation. And I believe that anything we find in science gives us insight into the mind and character of God.
You're not going to convert anyone to your cause by coming off as an arrogant prat, even if you were right.
Biological systems become more complicated, diverse, and sophisticated over time. We see this in the real world with bacteria and other microscopic organisms.
That's an oversimplification. The physical universe moves towards equilibrium--highly ordered systems require energy input to sustain, yes. Eventually the universe will fall apart because no new energy is being put into it. But God has provided away for biological organisms to GAIN energy--photosynthesis in plants, and the digestive system of animals. In the short term, biological organisms CAN become more complicated because more energy goes into them. Furthermore, the existence of God makes all this irrelevant because his Will alone is sufficient for biological life to defy the laws of thermodynamics.
...Um... Google around a bit.
What contradiction? "I believe God created the world. I believe he did so via the process of evolution." There is no contradiction here.
Well yes, but not only have modern theories of evolution been around for a relatively short time, but Jesus wisely pointed out that the majority is not always right. Furthermore I do believe in God and divine creation. And I believe that anything we find in science gives us insight into the mind and character of God.
You're not going to convert anyone to your cause by coming off as an arrogant prat, even if you were right.
grey beard it says in the bible that people will say that what is right is wrong and what is wring is right.
remember that when you are argueing with Zalen, although I agree full, 100% with you. Judgeing by you preaching to him, it seems that you dont think he is saved. And I am guessing by the fact that he approves of gays and gay adoption, that he isnt saved.
God bless you Geybeard
Kathleen
remember that when you are argueing with Zalen, although I agree full, 100% with you. Judgeing by you preaching to him, it seems that you dont think he is saved. And I am guessing by the fact that he approves of gays and gay adoption, that he isnt saved.
God bless you Geybeard
Kathleen
B
Let me add to this something from my biochemistry textbook:
"For a polypeptide chain of 100 residues in length, a rather modest size, the number of possible sequences is 20^100, or because 20 = 10^1.3, 10^130 unique possibilities. These numbers are more than astronomical! Because an average protein molecule of 100 residues would have a mass of 13,800 daltons (average molecular mass of an amino acid residue = 138), 10^130 such molecules would have a mass of 1.38 X 10^134 daltons. The mass of the observable universe is estimated to be 10^80 proton masses (about 10^80 daltons). the universe lacks enough material to make just one molecule of each possible polypeptide sequence for a protein only 100 residues in length."
Basically there is far less mass in the universe than the mass needed for the correct proteins to form randomly. Since the Bible says 6 days, that is what I believe; if I were to be wrong (which I doubt) would there be punishment for believing in the Word of God as is, or are we to assume that these days are millions of years and chance that our interpretation breaks the foundation of the Bible- Genesis is not the first book simply because it happened first, but also because it is the foundation for God's work within creation. If the creation did not take place as Jesus said, then all faith is misguided. If we simply misunderstand the Word of God, then where is the harm, even the Apostles, many times, did not understand what Jesus said. But if we do not believe the Word of God because we take human science to be greater, then...
"For a polypeptide chain of 100 residues in length, a rather modest size, the number of possible sequences is 20^100, or because 20 = 10^1.3, 10^130 unique possibilities. These numbers are more than astronomical! Because an average protein molecule of 100 residues would have a mass of 13,800 daltons (average molecular mass of an amino acid residue = 138), 10^130 such molecules would have a mass of 1.38 X 10^134 daltons. The mass of the observable universe is estimated to be 10^80 proton masses (about 10^80 daltons). the universe lacks enough material to make just one molecule of each possible polypeptide sequence for a protein only 100 residues in length."
Basically there is far less mass in the universe than the mass needed for the correct proteins to form randomly. Since the Bible says 6 days, that is what I believe; if I were to be wrong (which I doubt) would there be punishment for believing in the Word of God as is, or are we to assume that these days are millions of years and chance that our interpretation breaks the foundation of the Bible- Genesis is not the first book simply because it happened first, but also because it is the foundation for God's work within creation. If the creation did not take place as Jesus said, then all faith is misguided. If we simply misunderstand the Word of God, then where is the harm, even the Apostles, many times, did not understand what Jesus said. But if we do not believe the Word of God because we take human science to be greater, then...
There is little agreement on what records of such long life spans actually mean. Moreover, Christ was here to restore humanity, so perhaps the trend is heading the other way now? Not too long ago a woman died at 130.
Are you using obfuscating stupidity or are you really this unable to comprehend what I'm saying. The solar system is a closed system. It's gradually winding down. The Sun is itself a closed system. It's going to burn out eventually. But while the sun is burning, it's pumping energy from itself into Earth. And that is the energy that allows biological life to become more complex. Entropy on this level would theoretically take billions of years, and I'm fairly certain that Christ will return before then.
No, I'm saying that God built a system that allows for random outcomes, much like a computer simulation does.
I said effectively infinite. It won't burn out until the distant future.
Not all mutations are destructive. Mutations are what allows every breed of dog to be the same species.
The Bible is not a science book, and taking your science from it is a misapplication of resources.
Are you using obfuscating stupidity or are you really this unable to comprehend what I'm saying. The solar system is a closed system. It's gradually winding down. The Sun is itself a closed system. It's going to burn out eventually. But while the sun is burning, it's pumping energy from itself into Earth. And that is the energy that allows biological life to become more complex. Entropy on this level would theoretically take billions of years, and I'm fairly certain that Christ will return before then.
No, I'm saying that God built a system that allows for random outcomes, much like a computer simulation does.
I said effectively infinite. It won't burn out until the distant future.
Not all mutations are destructive. Mutations are what allows every breed of dog to be the same species.
The Bible is not a science book, and taking your science from it is a misapplication of resources.
Z
I've read the entire debate between Brakenzee and Cup of Rain. I have to say that i agree with Brakenzee.
Cup of Rain has made several comments that appear to be unfounded: for instance: "I disagree, the bible on the contrary is the most accurate scientific record in existence."
There is nothing remotely scientific about the bible. Perhaps some people would say factual, and I have no problem with that statement, but scientific is entirely different. Science is about the objective observation of nature by means of the scientific method. The scientific method had not been created when the bible was written.
Cup of Rain have also managed to gloss over very important details of argument. For instance, Brakenzee stated that:
"God provided us with a source of energy that is effectively limitless-the sun."
That is to say, that the lifespan of the sun, billions and billions of years, is relatively infinite to the span of human existence. So that it is EFFECTIVELY infinite, for our purposes of argument.
Cup of Rain responded by stating: "What are you saying? The sun is limited, it's energy source is finite..."
It is clear that Cup of Rain's response was not taking into account the qualifying word "EFFECTIVELY"
This means one of two things
1: Cup of Rain misinterpreted the word effectively, or did not understand what context it put the word "infinite" in. This makes Cup of Rain's arguments appear amateur. It makes one think that Cup of Rain is not capable of debating on a high level. A serious debater would not misinterpret Brakenzee's statement.
2: Cup of Rain intentionally attempted to gloss over the word effectively. This is malicious because it indicates a personal attack against Brakenzee's intelligence. Instead of responding to Brakenzee's arguments, Cup of Rain intentionally tried to cast Brakenzee in a bad light by re-interpreting what Brakenzee had said. Cup of rain would have known exactly what Brakenzee was trying to say, but decided to forsake the rules of debate and sink to a lower level.
Either way this does not cast Cup of Rain in a good light. I think that you are a terrible debater, either in terms of skill or in terms of willingness to maintain educated and respectful discussion.
Note I am not critiquing the facts that have been brought up, but rather the methods of debate. I find Cup of Rain's lacking.
@Kathleen: You are correct. I have not accepted Jesus as my savior.
-Thank you for considering what I have to say, Zalen
Cup of Rain has made several comments that appear to be unfounded: for instance: "I disagree, the bible on the contrary is the most accurate scientific record in existence."
There is nothing remotely scientific about the bible. Perhaps some people would say factual, and I have no problem with that statement, but scientific is entirely different. Science is about the objective observation of nature by means of the scientific method. The scientific method had not been created when the bible was written.
Cup of Rain have also managed to gloss over very important details of argument. For instance, Brakenzee stated that:
"God provided us with a source of energy that is effectively limitless-the sun."
That is to say, that the lifespan of the sun, billions and billions of years, is relatively infinite to the span of human existence. So that it is EFFECTIVELY infinite, for our purposes of argument.
Cup of Rain responded by stating: "What are you saying? The sun is limited, it's energy source is finite..."
It is clear that Cup of Rain's response was not taking into account the qualifying word "EFFECTIVELY"
This means one of two things
1: Cup of Rain misinterpreted the word effectively, or did not understand what context it put the word "infinite" in. This makes Cup of Rain's arguments appear amateur. It makes one think that Cup of Rain is not capable of debating on a high level. A serious debater would not misinterpret Brakenzee's statement.
2: Cup of Rain intentionally attempted to gloss over the word effectively. This is malicious because it indicates a personal attack against Brakenzee's intelligence. Instead of responding to Brakenzee's arguments, Cup of Rain intentionally tried to cast Brakenzee in a bad light by re-interpreting what Brakenzee had said. Cup of rain would have known exactly what Brakenzee was trying to say, but decided to forsake the rules of debate and sink to a lower level.
Either way this does not cast Cup of Rain in a good light. I think that you are a terrible debater, either in terms of skill or in terms of willingness to maintain educated and respectful discussion.
Note I am not critiquing the facts that have been brought up, but rather the methods of debate. I find Cup of Rain's lacking.
@Kathleen: You are correct. I have not accepted Jesus as my savior.
-Thank you for considering what I have to say, Zalen
Z
Good sir, did you not see the point of my post. Can you not see the difference between calling something infinite and EFFECTIVELY infinite. I'm not talking high religious thought here, just simple grammar. To be infinite is to one thing. To be EFFECTIVELY infinite is to not be infinite, but for the purposes of the example, be infinite. The sun's energy is EFFECTIVELY infinite compared to the short span of a human life.
The point of my last post was to note that you did not make the distinction between infinite and effectively infinite. I was very surprised to see that in your response you did not address this, but rather claimed that I did not know the definition of infinite. I know what infinite means. Do you know what Effectively means?
Do you think it is possible that someone can not lie, cheat, steal, covet, hoard, lust, kill, and judge and still not accept Jesus? I try to leave a peaceful life, and I live many of the principals taught in the bible. I do not however accept Christ. I am an atheist. Do you believe that all atheists are immoral? Can someone have morality without Jesus?
I can argue facts. I simply wished to state that I was not going to do so in my post. I expected that no one would try to argue points on religion with me, but rather points about your style of argument. Points you have once again seemed to gloss over. You have not yet attempted to refute my point: That you do not know what "effectively" means, or that you do know what it means and chose to ignore it in order to belittle someone else.
I don't understand how you can make an argument "The Bible is the most scientifically accurate record in existence."
Then have it refuted: The scientific method had not been created when the bible was written, therefore the Bible is not a scientific text.
And then have your counter-argument be the exact same as your argument: "The Bible is the most scientifically accurate record in existence."
You have given no evidence as to why it is so, just that it is. I have given a logical argument: The bible is not scientific, because when it was written science did not exist. You have given a statement.
Once again I would like to state, I am not trying to support evolution. I am trying to question your methods of debate.
I also sense much anger in your post. I get a "I am holier than thou" sense from it. Maybe you believe you are. Maybe you are, But I don't think Jesus would have flaunted his holiness at me if I was attempting to have an educated and civilized discussion with him.
I am also disturbed that instead of trying to help me, I feel as if you are denouncing me. Most Christians I have chatted with are very kind, and when we are finished speaking they say that they hope I will one day find my way to Jesus. Although right now I do not think I will, I am very touched by their sentiments. I feel no such sentiments about you as of right now.
The point of my last post was to note that you did not make the distinction between infinite and effectively infinite. I was very surprised to see that in your response you did not address this, but rather claimed that I did not know the definition of infinite. I know what infinite means. Do you know what Effectively means?
Do you think it is possible that someone can not lie, cheat, steal, covet, hoard, lust, kill, and judge and still not accept Jesus? I try to leave a peaceful life, and I live many of the principals taught in the bible. I do not however accept Christ. I am an atheist. Do you believe that all atheists are immoral? Can someone have morality without Jesus?
I can argue facts. I simply wished to state that I was not going to do so in my post. I expected that no one would try to argue points on religion with me, but rather points about your style of argument. Points you have once again seemed to gloss over. You have not yet attempted to refute my point: That you do not know what "effectively" means, or that you do know what it means and chose to ignore it in order to belittle someone else.
I don't understand how you can make an argument "The Bible is the most scientifically accurate record in existence."
Then have it refuted: The scientific method had not been created when the bible was written, therefore the Bible is not a scientific text.
And then have your counter-argument be the exact same as your argument: "The Bible is the most scientifically accurate record in existence."
You have given no evidence as to why it is so, just that it is. I have given a logical argument: The bible is not scientific, because when it was written science did not exist. You have given a statement.
Once again I would like to state, I am not trying to support evolution. I am trying to question your methods of debate.
I also sense much anger in your post. I get a "I am holier than thou" sense from it. Maybe you believe you are. Maybe you are, But I don't think Jesus would have flaunted his holiness at me if I was attempting to have an educated and civilized discussion with him.
I am also disturbed that instead of trying to help me, I feel as if you are denouncing me. Most Christians I have chatted with are very kind, and when we are finished speaking they say that they hope I will one day find my way to Jesus. Although right now I do not think I will, I am very touched by their sentiments. I feel no such sentiments about you as of right now.
- Status