-
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.
Sharing my devotional with my Atheists friends for March 8th. Today's bible texts I found interesting and speaks to you I believe - I know it spoke to me. Please read - thanks. Dear Father in Heaven as we read Your word please open our hearts and minds. In Jesus Name Amen
Jeremiah 29: 11-13
11 - For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the Lord, thoughts of peace and not evil, to give you a future and a hope.
12 - Then you will call upon Me and go and pray to Me, and I will listen to you.
13 - And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart.
14 (First Part) - I will be found by you says the Lord
When I read this - this morning my thoughts went to my new friends here on this thread. I do pray that you seek Him and that you find Him. Thanks for sharing today's devotional with me. Carry on.. and have a Great Day. Happy Sabbath.
Jeremiah 29: 11-13
11 - For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the Lord, thoughts of peace and not evil, to give you a future and a hope.
12 - Then you will call upon Me and go and pray to Me, and I will listen to you.
13 - And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart.
14 (First Part) - I will be found by you says the Lord
When I read this - this morning my thoughts went to my new friends here on this thread. I do pray that you seek Him and that you find Him. Thanks for sharing today's devotional with me. Carry on.. and have a Great Day. Happy Sabbath.
But did you notice Gregory, NL didn't actually refute anything, nor attempt to prove anything. All he did was tell you the eye is a complex organ, which we already know, and then affirmed what you already believe, that it was simply too complex for it not to have been created. A statement of belief does not provide any answers. I don't see that NL cleared up anything for you.
It is true that the human eye could not have come into existence in a single step which is why evolution envisions many gradual improvements over time. Oddly it is believers who want to take the difficult route and have a deity assemble the first complete human being from scratch. Now scripture gives two competing accounts. In the first (Genesis 1:24-27) humans are created last, and in the last account (Genesis 2:18-23) humans are created first, well at least Adam was created first, then all the animals, and finally when no partner could be found among them for him, God finally created woman.
The confusion in Genesis as it pertains to the order things were created in doesn't really impact the discussion of the human eye. What bothers me is that while I admit the human eye is complex I have to think that if the eye had an intelligent creator then that Being must in itself be several orders of magnitude more complex than the eye. I think you would agree. But if the eye is so complex that it must have a creator then the even more complex deity that created the eye, must itself have an even more complex creator as well. This is simply an extension of your own logic.
I will give you another point we both can agree upon. Eyes must have a beginning. Did you know that even some single celled animals possess light sensitive patches (see article on Euglena in Wikipedia)? Within the animal kingdom there are a whole host of examples of eyes existing in various stages of complexity, that when examined in a series show how the eye might have evolved by stages.
When you propose the eye was created by an intelligent force you must then explain the origin of that Being as well. If you insist that something with the complexity of the eye must have a designer then in good conscious how can you ignore my proposal that the creator, being at least as complex as the eye, must also have a beginning? The problem is you have no recourse to an explanation that makes any sense, so you must fall back on the equally awkward proposal that God must always have existed. However, if you don’t worry about where something as unfathomly complex as God came from, why do you worry about where the eye came from?
Here is another concern. God formed Adam from the dust of the ground and breathed life into him (Genesis 2-7). That would be like you making a functioning eye by rolling some clay into a ball and blowing on it. That might provide a satisfying answer for you, but I hope you can understand why I want something a lot more plausible.
It is true that the human eye could not have come into existence in a single step which is why evolution envisions many gradual improvements over time. Oddly it is believers who want to take the difficult route and have a deity assemble the first complete human being from scratch. Now scripture gives two competing accounts. In the first (Genesis 1:24-27) humans are created last, and in the last account (Genesis 2:18-23) humans are created first, well at least Adam was created first, then all the animals, and finally when no partner could be found among them for him, God finally created woman.
The confusion in Genesis as it pertains to the order things were created in doesn't really impact the discussion of the human eye. What bothers me is that while I admit the human eye is complex I have to think that if the eye had an intelligent creator then that Being must in itself be several orders of magnitude more complex than the eye. I think you would agree. But if the eye is so complex that it must have a creator then the even more complex deity that created the eye, must itself have an even more complex creator as well. This is simply an extension of your own logic.
I will give you another point we both can agree upon. Eyes must have a beginning. Did you know that even some single celled animals possess light sensitive patches (see article on Euglena in Wikipedia)? Within the animal kingdom there are a whole host of examples of eyes existing in various stages of complexity, that when examined in a series show how the eye might have evolved by stages.
When you propose the eye was created by an intelligent force you must then explain the origin of that Being as well. If you insist that something with the complexity of the eye must have a designer then in good conscious how can you ignore my proposal that the creator, being at least as complex as the eye, must also have a beginning? The problem is you have no recourse to an explanation that makes any sense, so you must fall back on the equally awkward proposal that God must always have existed. However, if you don’t worry about where something as unfathomly complex as God came from, why do you worry about where the eye came from?
Here is another concern. God formed Adam from the dust of the ground and breathed life into him (Genesis 2-7). That would be like you making a functioning eye by rolling some clay into a ball and blowing on it. That might provide a satisfying answer for you, but I hope you can understand why I want something a lot more plausible.
I want to thank all of you guys on this thread for confirming my belief in God.
You are not going to believe this - I find it amazing....The scripture reading for church today March 8th was Jeremiah 29: 11-13. The exact same verses I posted for you above around 9:00 am this morning. I have been praying that God would reveal Himself to you and He prompted me to put on my earlier post of Jeremiah. I had never heard Gloria Beck speak before today and she was our guest speaker and used the same scripture I had read in my devotional.
So tell me guys what are the odds of all the many devotional books out there that I would read the exact same verses that were used as the scripture reading at church on the same day. I'd really be interested in knowing what those odds are. But I know without one doubt that those verses were meant as a message for my new friends on this thread from God Himself. God is speaking to you - won't you please listen. Wishing you a Blessed and Great day. From your SDA friend - JesusLives
You are not going to believe this - I find it amazing....The scripture reading for church today March 8th was Jeremiah 29: 11-13. The exact same verses I posted for you above around 9:00 am this morning. I have been praying that God would reveal Himself to you and He prompted me to put on my earlier post of Jeremiah. I had never heard Gloria Beck speak before today and she was our guest speaker and used the same scripture I had read in my devotional.
So tell me guys what are the odds of all the many devotional books out there that I would read the exact same verses that were used as the scripture reading at church on the same day. I'd really be interested in knowing what those odds are. But I know without one doubt that those verses were meant as a message for my new friends on this thread from God Himself. God is speaking to you - won't you please listen. Wishing you a Blessed and Great day. From your SDA friend - JesusLives
Gradual improvements over time would need a sustained purpose and design in order to arrive at a coordinated result. The human body demonstrates consistent symmetry. Purposeful intent was needed to make things to match between left and right sides. Purposeful intent was necessary to develop the coordinated design between male and female.
The development of the eye required coordinated development of its multiple components. The same thing needed to happen twice to create the second, matching eye. An imaginary cyclops had one eye. Short of birth defects and injuries, everyone else has two and they match. Symmetry of plant and animal life is the consistent design pattern. It is impossible that this could have happened repeatedly by accident. Belief in the impossible is not rational. Whether by rational thought or intuition, it is best to acknowledge truth and reality and not to believe the impossible.
The development of the eye required coordinated development of its multiple components. The same thing needed to happen twice to create the second, matching eye. An imaginary cyclops had one eye. Short of birth defects and injuries, everyone else has two and they match. Symmetry of plant and animal life is the consistent design pattern. It is impossible that this could have happened repeatedly by accident. Belief in the impossible is not rational. Whether by rational thought or intuition, it is best to acknowledge truth and reality and not to believe the impossible.
Cycel, IntoTheVoid, Percipi, TheKringledOne
O.K. guys I totally admit that I am technology challenged and don't know how to share a YouTube video to anywhere. However, there is a thread that was started recently on CC that is titled Hydroplate Theory and I found it to be very interesting. Have any of you heard of this explanation of a global flood? If not please take a look at this thread and let me know what you think?
Or if any other CC member knows how to post that video to this thread for their viewing pleasure would you please help a young old lady out? Thanks guys. Could be some scientific proof for you.
O.K. guys I totally admit that I am technology challenged and don't know how to share a YouTube video to anywhere. However, there is a thread that was started recently on CC that is titled Hydroplate Theory and I found it to be very interesting. Have any of you heard of this explanation of a global flood? If not please take a look at this thread and let me know what you think?
Or if any other CC member knows how to post that video to this thread for their viewing pleasure would you please help a young old lady out? Thanks guys. Could be some scientific proof for you.
JL If you want to share a video just select the info in the address bar, copy it and paste it into your message window. to copy type either left click and select copy paste with mouse or use the keys(command c = copy on apple control c = copy on PC)(command v = paste on apple control v = paste on PC). Hope that helps...
Here's the links you asked for
video
Hydroplate Theory? - YouTube
thread
http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/86808-hydroplate-theory-flood.html
Here's the links you asked for
video
Hydroplate Theory? - YouTube
thread
http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/86808-hydroplate-theory-flood.html
Last edited:
JL If you want to share a video just select the info in the address bar, copy it and paste it into your message window. to copy type either left click and select copy paste with mouse or use the keys(command c = copy on apple control c = copy on PC)(command v = paste on apple control v = paste on PC). Hope that helps...
Here's the links you asked for
video
Hydroplate Theory? - YouTube
thread
http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/86808-hydroplate-theory-flood.html
Here's the links you asked for
video
Hydroplate Theory? - YouTube
thread
http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/86808-hydroplate-theory-flood.html
In the Encyclopaedia of Religion in Australia, David Nicholls, the head honcho of atheism in Australia has written an article defending atheism. In the article he says that atheism is based on reason, not the desire to gain adherents through dread, promises of supernatural assistance and life after death.
If atheism is based on reason why is it that their underpinning evolution, needs large amounts of faith to believe?
I say this because yesterday I watched a DVD where a Christian visited a USA university campus and interveiwed professors and students who were teaching and studying, science, biology, environmental biology and similar subjects. All claimed to be atheists.
The interviewer asked each one “Can you tell me about one observable fact that indicated that one species changed into another species.”
One professor spoke of something that happened 60 million years ago. The interviewer asked who observed it? The professor said no one.
All the students except one said they could not produce one observable incident that changed one species into another.
One brought up the changed finches beaks on the Galapagos Islands. The interviewer asked “What were the birds before their beaks changed.” The student said finches. Then he asked “what were the birds after the finches beaks changed.” The student said finches. So, said the interviewer, there was no change in the species. The student said “yes, their beaks adapted.” But said the interviewer, finches before the adaptation and finches after the adaptation so no evolution of species.
The interviewer went on and said “as you have no observable evidence of evolution, where do you get your information that evolution happened?” Everyone said their lecturer. So they are asked “you have faith in what your lecturer says?”
Everyone said yes. “In that case” said the interviewer, “your belief in evolution is not based on facts, it is based on faith in your lecturer. Is that right.” They all said yes.
So the interviewer said “If all you have for proof of evolution is what your lecturer says, then surely you have a belief system.” All agreed that was the case proving that evolution is a belief system not an observable fact so it is as religious as the next belief system.
He finally said as evolution is a belief system that requires large amounts of faith in what people say, without any observable fact to back it up, it is more fanciful than Christianity.
So David, there is not much reason in the thinking of the experts but there is definitely a lot of faith.
If atheism is based on reason why is it that their underpinning evolution, needs large amounts of faith to believe?
I say this because yesterday I watched a DVD where a Christian visited a USA university campus and interveiwed professors and students who were teaching and studying, science, biology, environmental biology and similar subjects. All claimed to be atheists.
The interviewer asked each one “Can you tell me about one observable fact that indicated that one species changed into another species.”
One professor spoke of something that happened 60 million years ago. The interviewer asked who observed it? The professor said no one.
All the students except one said they could not produce one observable incident that changed one species into another.
One brought up the changed finches beaks on the Galapagos Islands. The interviewer asked “What were the birds before their beaks changed.” The student said finches. Then he asked “what were the birds after the finches beaks changed.” The student said finches. So, said the interviewer, there was no change in the species. The student said “yes, their beaks adapted.” But said the interviewer, finches before the adaptation and finches after the adaptation so no evolution of species.
The interviewer went on and said “as you have no observable evidence of evolution, where do you get your information that evolution happened?” Everyone said their lecturer. So they are asked “you have faith in what your lecturer says?”
Everyone said yes. “In that case” said the interviewer, “your belief in evolution is not based on facts, it is based on faith in your lecturer. Is that right.” They all said yes.
So the interviewer said “If all you have for proof of evolution is what your lecturer says, then surely you have a belief system.” All agreed that was the case proving that evolution is a belief system not an observable fact so it is as religious as the next belief system.
He finally said as evolution is a belief system that requires large amounts of faith in what people say, without any observable fact to back it up, it is more fanciful than Christianity.
So David, there is not much reason in the thinking of the experts but there is definitely a lot of faith.
R
Is there such a thing as an atheist?
This is what God thinks about the subject:
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God..." Psalm 14:1a
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the
invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" Rom 1:18-20
This is what God thinks about the subject:
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God..." Psalm 14:1a
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the
invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" Rom 1:18-20