-
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.
[SIZE=+1]Behold A Virgin Shall Conceive[/SIZE]
Isaiah 7:14 (Matthew 1:23)
Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call his name EMMANUEL, God with us.
Isaiah 7:14 (Matthew 1:23)
Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call his name EMMANUEL, God with us.
Handel's Messiah - Performance Link: http://youtu.be/GzUtIro1B3g
Matthew 1:22-23 declares that the birth of Jesus Christ was a fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 (recorded by Isaiah approximately 800 years before it happened).
Colorful, welcome to the forum.
I am an atheist, but I have to admit that when I first heard of that atheist bus billboard I wondered what the point was. Also, I have no issue with representations of the manger scene at Christmas. I don't find expressions of Christian belief offensive and I love Christmas carols.
I am an atheist, but I have to admit that when I first heard of that atheist bus billboard I wondered what the point was. Also, I have no issue with representations of the manger scene at Christmas. I don't find expressions of Christian belief offensive and I love Christmas carols.
My personal perspective of their message has many possible explanations for their motives in posting the billboard.
1.) A lot of atheist, especially the passionate ones, feel victimized or defrauded from their own life experience participating (possibly forcibly) in Christianity. In order to prevent people from falling in their footsteps, they could take a proactive approach to neutralize the current Christians (in this case their children) as well as future prospects.
2.) Humor. I hope I don't get judged... but I thought it was kind of funny (as I said I am a Christian). I remember when I lived at home I use to pretend to be sick on Sundays so I didn't have to go to church. Humor is a great tool to gain support or more followers. To tie it in with the Christmas season would make it more advantageous.
3.) "There is no such thing as bad publicity". The more controversial a message is, the more people they are able to reach their message to.
Just to name a few.
I think the credibility of Christianity is just as much in question as atheism though. It's hard to quantify it when it comes to spiritual beliefs. With your example of "raping small children", that is universally accepted, where as faith is not as much agreed upon.
If your argument is that because their source is not credible, they shouldn't have the right to post it... you then open a ginormous can of worms for more than just spiritual billboards.
My initial post ignores credibility but focuses on ability (the right) to post such a billboard (that doesn't condone or promote illegal actions). If someone wanted to post on a billboard "1+1=5", I don't see a problem with it (other than it doesn't equal 5 lol).
If your argument is that because their source is not credible, they shouldn't have the right to post it... you then open a ginormous can of worms for more than just spiritual billboards.
My initial post ignores credibility but focuses on ability (the right) to post such a billboard (that doesn't condone or promote illegal actions). If someone wanted to post on a billboard "1+1=5", I don't see a problem with it (other than it doesn't equal 5 lol).
Last edited:
K
I was the OP of this thread.It got way off track but looks like some good discussion happened.My question as to "why atheists bother" was more of a question of war on Christmas.Celebrate your own way,allow Christians to do the same.I dont see why it matters to an atheist.Maybe someone here will enlighten me...
I apologize for being a bit late with my response, but I feel like the following wasn't adequately addressed.
Who says Mesohippus is a fake? As far as I'm aware, only creationist not-scientists. Source please.
We have numerous fossils of australapithecus.
[video=youtube;myfifz3C0mI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myfifz3C0mI&list=PL126AFB53A6F002CC&index= 13[/video]
This video completely annihilates your argument. Obviously it won't convince you, but it will at least expose you to hose who aren't close minded.
You ask for transitional fossils as if you're looking for something that gills a gap. But when that gap fills, you make up excuses. It will be impossible to find a transitional fossil you're happy with because transitional fossils are always different from their ancestors before and after - and as long as they're different you're going to call it its own kind. But a transitional fossil has to be different so that we can witness the transition. Your criteria for what a transitional fossil doesn't exist. This is why it's pointless for you to argue that transitional forms don't exist - because you've already proven that you have no standards for what you're even looking for.
Nebraska Man was never accepted by the scientific community. One scientist thought he found the tooth of an ancient man and made the mistake of telling the media which took off with the story. The scientific community figured out the tooth came from a pig and the man who discovered the tooth admitted he was wrong.
Lastly, you linked a video created by Kent Hovind. I'm sorry, but are you trying to lose this debate? The video portrays half-truths covered in lies - such as the very example you mentioned in which Kent tries to pretend that Nebraska man was hailed as fact by the scientific community when it wasn't. The video I linked covers many of Kent's completely dishonest claims.
I'd just like to point out, Kent Hovind gained his Ph.D from a degree mill and he has the audacity to call himself an expert.
The reason you're being fooled by liars such as Kent is because you don't fact check. It's evident in your response to Cycel.
And if you actually looked into exactly what happened, you would know that the scientific community was very skeptical of the tooth and never published any scientific articles stating Nebraska Man to be real. The media, on the other hand, took off with the story because the media has this bad habit of doing just as little fact checking as you.
Who says Mesohippus is a fake? As far as I'm aware, only creationist not-scientists. Source please.
We have numerous fossils of australapithecus.
[video=youtube;myfifz3C0mI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myfifz3C0mI&list=PL126AFB53A6F002CC&index= 13[/video]
This video completely annihilates your argument. Obviously it won't convince you, but it will at least expose you to hose who aren't close minded.
You ask for transitional fossils as if you're looking for something that gills a gap. But when that gap fills, you make up excuses. It will be impossible to find a transitional fossil you're happy with because transitional fossils are always different from their ancestors before and after - and as long as they're different you're going to call it its own kind. But a transitional fossil has to be different so that we can witness the transition. Your criteria for what a transitional fossil doesn't exist. This is why it's pointless for you to argue that transitional forms don't exist - because you've already proven that you have no standards for what you're even looking for.
Nebraska Man was never accepted by the scientific community. One scientist thought he found the tooth of an ancient man and made the mistake of telling the media which took off with the story. The scientific community figured out the tooth came from a pig and the man who discovered the tooth admitted he was wrong.
Lastly, you linked a video created by Kent Hovind. I'm sorry, but are you trying to lose this debate? The video portrays half-truths covered in lies - such as the very example you mentioned in which Kent tries to pretend that Nebraska man was hailed as fact by the scientific community when it wasn't. The video I linked covers many of Kent's completely dishonest claims.
I'd just like to point out, Kent Hovind gained his Ph.D from a degree mill and he has the audacity to call himself an expert.
The reason you're being fooled by liars such as Kent is because you don't fact check. It's evident in your response to Cycel.
And if you actually looked into exactly what happened, you would know that the scientific community was very skeptical of the tooth and never published any scientific articles stating Nebraska Man to be real. The media, on the other hand, took off with the story because the media has this bad habit of doing just as little fact checking as you.
Last edited:
I think their way of "celebrating" Christmas is by expressing it publicly (as we Christians do). To them, that is "celebrating" their "own way".
As Christians, how do Atheists or their billboard prevent us from celebrating Christmas our own way? Just because we don't agree (or even like their public statements) doesn't mean they are preventing us from celebrating it our own way.
As Christians, how do Atheists or their billboard prevent us from celebrating Christmas our own way? Just because we don't agree (or even like their public statements) doesn't mean they are preventing us from celebrating it our own way.
Jesus in the four Gospel accounts was anything like annoyed only rarely. When it happened, religious hypocrites were the ones He addressed and also obstructionists buying and selling merchandise in the temple.
Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves. - Matthew 21:12-13
Matthew 23:13 - But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
The etymology of the word "hypocrite" describes a meaning related to one being an actor or pretender.
Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves. - Matthew 21:12-13
Matthew 23:13 - But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
The etymology of the word "hypocrite" describes a meaning related to one being an actor or pretender.
Last edited:
How did Jesus dealt with atheists, liberals, and religious hypocrites?
Atheists:
It is true that Jesus didn't spend much time talking to any atheists.
Both the Bible and other historical records show atheists going back thousands of years, both inside of Israel, and outside of Israel.
There must have been a few around, but Jesus pretty much completely ignored them, as if they didn't exist.
(If you're an atheist, that isn't exactly something to BRAG about... it's something to be CONCERNED about.)
Liberals
The Sadducees would more or less equate to the religious liberals of the day, and they didn't fare too well at the words of Christ.
Jesus never said anything very nice to them.
As far as a more modern kind of philosophical liberal... this might equate more to Pontius Pilate. We see Pilate expose a bit of relativism when he says, "What is truth?" He then shows more of his situational ethics immediately after that when he allows the Jews to release a robber, and execute Christ in his place... which he did merely to keep the peace, fully knowing Christ was innocent and the robber was guilty.
At the point Pontius Pilate made this bold relativistic statement, and began to go forward with his situational ethics, what did Christ say?
At that point Christ didn't even speak to him further. Christ just ignored him like he didn't exist.
Religious Hypocrites
The Pharisees were definitely religious hypocrites because they were very legalistic.... making lots of rules for others which they themselves didn't follow very well.
Christ said a lot of scathing things about them.
(However, the Sadducees were also hypocrites. Both groups were denounced by Christ.)
There were also other types of people Jesus took issue with,
but there was only ONE group of people Jesus was accepting of...
those who were REPENTANT.
Last edited:
Firstly I am 15 seconds into the video and your video is suggesting that ontongeny recapitulates phylogany is correct.... If I wasn't christian I would be cussing... Are you stupid! Ernast Henkle did not just "mess up some drawings due to lack of knowledge" Here is Ernast Henkles drawings.
And do you know why he admitted that his drawings were wrong??? HIS UNIVERSITY FOUND OUT AND HAD AN ACADEMIC TRIAL AND HE RELUCTANTLY ADMITTED THEY WERE FALSE!!!!!!!!!! 15 seconds into your video and they are already buttering over the facts.... And you claim my video was false!!! LOLOLOLOLOLOL
Nebraska Man was to be used in the Skopes trial, if that is not being accepted evolution scientific community then you guys need to get a hold of youselves.
A degree mill? Really, LOL Even if it was, can I ask you does this defeat his points? NO! It's a ad hominem attack.
AGAIN IF TRANSITIONAL FOSSSILS WERE FOUND IN VARIOUS STAGES OF EVOLUTION YOUR THEORY WOULD BE PROVEN TODAY!!!!! BUT YOU FIND THEM COMPARTMENTALIZED! THEY ARE ALWAYS IN A SINGLE STAGES LOCKED IN TIME, NEVER FLUID!
FOR INSTANCE THIS PICTURE ILLUSTRATES A FLUID CHANGE
IF YOU COULD FIND 5 FOSSILS OF THAT PICTURE ONE FOR EACH FACE, IT WOULD NOT BE COMPARTMENTALIZED IT WOULD PROVE YOUR THEORY! WE WOULD WATCH THE FOREHEAD RECLINE, THE NOSE FLATTEN, THE JAW STRENGTHEN... BUT NO, YOUR EVIDENCE GOES AS FOLLOWS, REPTILE SKULL > SMASHED SKULL> BIRD... AND YOU GO PROOF!!!!! ARE YOU GUYS WANTING TO BE STUPID????
Firstly I am 15 seconds into the video and your video is suggesting that ontongeny recapitulates phylogany is correct.... If I wasn't christian I would be cussing... Are you stupid! Ernast Henkle did not just "mess up some drawings due to lack of knowledge" Here is Ernast Henkles drawings.
And do you know why he admitted that his drawings were wrong??? HIS UNIVERSITY FOUND OUT AND HAD AN ACADEMIC TRIAL AND HE RELUCTANTLY ADMITTED THEY WERE FALSE!!!!!!!!!! 15 seconds into your video and they are already buttering over the facts.... And you claim my video was false!!! LOLOLOLOLOLOL
Nebraska Man was to be used in the Skopes trial, if that is not being accepted evolution scientific community then you guys need to get a hold of youselves.
A degree mill? Really, LOL Even if it was, can I ask you does this defeat his points? NO! It's a ad hominem attack.
AGAIN IF TRANSITIONAL FOSSSILS WERE FOUND IN VARIOUS STAGES OF EVOLUTION YOUR THEORY WOULD BE PROVEN TODAY!!!!! BUT YOU FIND THEM COMPARTMENTALIZED! THEY ARE ALWAYS IN A SINGLE STAGES LOCKED IN TIME, NEVER FLUID!
FOR INSTANCE THIS PICTURE ILLUSTRATES A FLUID CHANGE
View attachment 93261
IF YOU COULD FIND 5 FOSSILS OF THAT PICTURE ONE FOR EACH FACE, IT WOULD NOT BE COMPARTMENTALIZED IT WOULD PROVE YOUR THEORY! WE WOULD WATCH THE FOREHEAD RECLINE, THE NOSE FLATTEN, THE JAW STRENGTHEN... BUT NO, YOUR EVIDENCE GOES AS FOLLOWS, REPTILE SKULL > SMASHED SKULL> BIRD... AND YOU GO PROOF!!!!! ARE YOU GUYS WANTING TO BE STUPID????
And do you know why he admitted that his drawings were wrong??? HIS UNIVERSITY FOUND OUT AND HAD AN ACADEMIC TRIAL AND HE RELUCTANTLY ADMITTED THEY WERE FALSE!!!!!!!!!! 15 seconds into your video and they are already buttering over the facts.... And you claim my video was false!!! LOLOLOLOLOLOL
Nebraska Man was to be used in the Skopes trial, if that is not being accepted evolution scientific community then you guys need to get a hold of youselves.
A degree mill? Really, LOL Even if it was, can I ask you does this defeat his points? NO! It's a ad hominem attack.
AGAIN IF TRANSITIONAL FOSSSILS WERE FOUND IN VARIOUS STAGES OF EVOLUTION YOUR THEORY WOULD BE PROVEN TODAY!!!!! BUT YOU FIND THEM COMPARTMENTALIZED! THEY ARE ALWAYS IN A SINGLE STAGES LOCKED IN TIME, NEVER FLUID!
FOR INSTANCE THIS PICTURE ILLUSTRATES A FLUID CHANGE
View attachment 93261
IF YOU COULD FIND 5 FOSSILS OF THAT PICTURE ONE FOR EACH FACE, IT WOULD NOT BE COMPARTMENTALIZED IT WOULD PROVE YOUR THEORY! WE WOULD WATCH THE FOREHEAD RECLINE, THE NOSE FLATTEN, THE JAW STRENGTHEN... BUT NO, YOUR EVIDENCE GOES AS FOLLOWS, REPTILE SKULL > SMASHED SKULL> BIRD... AND YOU GO PROOF!!!!! ARE YOU GUYS WANTING TO BE STUPID????
Evolutionary theory isn't about making up bridges, it's about seeing the chronological progression of organisms and charting it. We don't start out with a bridge, we find one and do the maths.
Fossils are ALWAYS fluid. There are no 'compartmentalized' fossils at all. There are classified fossils, that we, HUMANS, classified because of their significant differences. Imagine there were no taxonomic classifications for a second, forget everything you've ever known or thought you've known about creation or evolution. You look at fossils from hundreds of millions of years ago, and you see a fish with a jawbone slightly back in its neck. You find a fossil of some time later where the jaw has receded and bones have grown off it in towards the brain. Then another from some time later where the furthest back bone has attached itself to the nervous system with a drum like flap of skin, the fish has elongated fins and tiny protrusions at the ends. Then you find another from some time later where the bones have formed fully in front of an eardrum and another flap of skin leaves an opening, and the organism can move on land. Some time later you find another fossil of an organism whose gills have begun to recede and whose jaw has moved forward, with a fully formed ear-opening.
And so on and so on. What would you think was happening??
Please, take a biology class, if only to inform you about the reality of what taxonomic classification actually is, how it came about, what factors are considered in order to classify species, how evolutionary progression is charted, what the process is, how mutations occur, what modern examples of mutations we can readily observe, what evolution has happened in humans alone in the past few hundred years, what life is essentially, what process proteins chain together in to form aminos, etcetera, etcetera.
You can't honestly believe you understand the process enough to criticize it. You're repeating rehashed arguments that have been given a thousand times before, and not to be mean, but you don't have the understanding that qualifies you to make informed arguments about the topic. You're constantly changing goal posts, avoiding questions and citing unreferenced media hearsay that really has no tangible value in this argument apart from to win you brownie points with other creationists on the forum.
Faulty Analogy. This fallacy consists in assuming that because two things are alike in one or more respects, they are necessarily alike in some other respect, eg. assuming that because raping children and promoting atheism are both things you dislike, that they can be morally equated.
Moral equivalency fallacy: Moral equivalence is a form of equivocation often used in political debates. It seeks to draw comparisons between different, often unrelated things, to make a point that one is just as bad as the other or just as good as the other.
False equivalence: describing a situation of logical and apparent equivalence, when in fact there is none.
Moralistic fallacy : inferring factual conclusions from purely evaluative premises in violation of fact-value distinction. For instance, inferring is from ought is an instance of moralistic fallacy.
Proof by assertion: Similar to ad nauseum. Considering something true because it is continually restated.
No but a single cell evolved into the amazing diversity of life on this planet.
??? So what are you saying that the progression from one species to another is really not a bridge?
Frankly, this is just disingenuous. There should be stacks of intermediate fossils with fish having fins that are partially developed into toes and feet. The enormous amount of fish that would have to lived to S-L-O-W-L-Y evolved into a land creature should have left mountains of fossil evidence. Much more fossil evidence for intermediates than the fully formed species.
We should not be able to dig up a flower garden for all the fossils of intermediate species. One has to wonder where they all disappeared to.
When you make statements such as "Evolution does not explain where life came from.", yet the theory does say that life came from rocks billions of years ago, it is really hard to take you seriously.
You point to variations and adaptations within species and say "Eureka! macro evolution at work."
Yep, I find it a little difficult to take you seriously.
Moses parted the Red Sea and I can prove it... I find it a work of God you choose to use one of my favorite proofs
Take a look at this link then get back to me.
Ten Plagues
Take a look at this link then get back to me.
Ten Plagues
Amazing, really.
I'm saying the progressions are something we learn from the fossils. We see the chronology from the fossils; we observe them and record them.
Most animals decompose, only a tiny fraction ever fossilize.
'Fully formed species' ... this is getting repetitive. Look, 'fully formed species' are classified as species because we have classified them that way. Technically, all species are transitional fossils, every single one that has ever been found and every single one that hasn't. We have tons of fossils that show biological changes, in fact, every fossil does - fins progressing toward limbs, jaws to inner ear bones, reptilian arms bending up toward the back. We classify all specific fossils, and all organisms, into groupings and name them 'species', which is nothing more than a group of organisms that can breed together. Every organism is in a particular species, and every organism is transitional. Every organism on Earth is constantly evolving. Every organism on Earth has been classified as a species, and is a snapshot of change. It is a constant process. Those hominid skulls that you consider 'fully formed species'? Transitional. The human body found last week in my city? Transitional. The pig that provided you with bacon? Transitional. The dog you own? Transitional.
They're in museums and laboratories, graveyards and in soil, in forests and at sea. They're everywhere. You're a transitional species. We classify you as homo sapiens because you're very slightly different from the homo species you evolved from, thus you'd be unable to breed fertile offspring with them, a bit like lions and tigers, or zebra and horses. Similar but not quite the same.
Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The theory of evolution by natural selection: Theory explaining the change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
It does not deal with the origin of life, only in life once is was already established.
Genetic adaptation is the same thing as genetic mutation is the same thing as ''micro evolution''. They all represent the same thing.
Really? ...
I'm saying the progressions are something we learn from the fossils. We see the chronology from the fossils; we observe them and record them.
Most animals decompose, only a tiny fraction ever fossilize.
'Fully formed species' ... this is getting repetitive. Look, 'fully formed species' are classified as species because we have classified them that way. Technically, all species are transitional fossils, every single one that has ever been found and every single one that hasn't. We have tons of fossils that show biological changes, in fact, every fossil does - fins progressing toward limbs, jaws to inner ear bones, reptilian arms bending up toward the back. We classify all specific fossils, and all organisms, into groupings and name them 'species', which is nothing more than a group of organisms that can breed together. Every organism is in a particular species, and every organism is transitional. Every organism on Earth is constantly evolving. Every organism on Earth has been classified as a species, and is a snapshot of change. It is a constant process. Those hominid skulls that you consider 'fully formed species'? Transitional. The human body found last week in my city? Transitional. The pig that provided you with bacon? Transitional. The dog you own? Transitional.
They're in museums and laboratories, graveyards and in soil, in forests and at sea. They're everywhere. You're a transitional species. We classify you as homo sapiens because you're very slightly different from the homo species you evolved from, thus you'd be unable to breed fertile offspring with them, a bit like lions and tigers, or zebra and horses. Similar but not quite the same.
Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The theory of evolution by natural selection: Theory explaining the change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
It does not deal with the origin of life, only in life once is was already established.
Genetic adaptation is the same thing as genetic mutation is the same thing as ''micro evolution''. They all represent the same thing.
Really? ...