whats your opinion on atheism ?

  • 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.
megaman125 said:
So why are you so adamant about getting Christians to believe the way you do about billions of years ago? We don't care for your billions of years beliefs, and we're not going to start believing them just because you keep spouting it as absolute fact and "other Christians believe it."
Click to expand...

It's becase of the reason you don't believe it.

First of all, evolution is a fact: species change over time. There can be some discussion about the changes, but the base line is pretty much true. I'm not claiming it to be an absolute certainty because that doesn't exist, it's that all the evidence supports it and is the best possible theory for life on earth.

It's not a belief, it's a theory. A theory in science is the highest point in which a successful hypothesis can go, meaning there's no doubt it's the best explanation.

You don't have to care for it and certainly i'm not preaching it, i'm just pointing out it's been proven and the highest of theists and theologists and other scientists cannot disprove it. Whether you choose to accept it is your decision.

And when i say other christians believe it, i was trying to point out that they don't see a conflict and that you shouldn't either if that's why you don't accept it
 
basebool said:
You do realize the man who came up with the big bang theory was catholic right? You do also realize you can accept evolution and the big bang and still b christian?

And i never called you ignorant, i'm saying you are if you blantely rejected something with no intention of understanding it, but hopefully you aren't.

Now i can answer some of your questions:

1) it depends how you define intellegence. Apes and chimpanzenes and other mammels have intellegence too, obviously different from ours. I think i know what you're referring to and the simple answer is that we got lucky. There was no innate reason why we are the only ones, it just happened. We're lucky to have greatly evolved brains to do so many things, and can be explained with evolution.

2) i don't know what you're asking there.

3) the non-matter had its reaction, but there's no current theory describing who was first and all that. All we know is that it produced our common ancestor and after millions of years comes us.

And i've been trying to be nice here, please don't take it out of context. Let's just have a discussion and leave out personal things.

And just to reiterate, evolution =\= disproving god, i know many christians who accept pretty much all the science out there. So i'm sure you can too
Click to expand...


Can you give me a link or something to back that up about non-matter generating our common ansestor please. Also in speaking with you and thinking on this stuff you reminded me of a conversation with my husband a couple months ago......
[h=3]2 Peter 3:8[/h]King James Version (KJV)

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.



k darn there is that "I" word again lol ok so taking this scripture and also genesis creation story 7 days right..... see what I'm saying. What if God created the world in 6 days of his time but to our world it would have been 6000 years. Am I making sence? I can't rule this out as impossible. I am not saying I believe it but I can't disbelieve it either. I do not believe we came from monkeys tho. I do believe He created us.
 
sunshinelovin1700 said:
Can you give me a link or something to back that up about non-matter generating our common ansestor please. Also in speaking with you and thinking on this stuff you reminded me of a conversation with my husband a couple months ago......
2 Peter 3:8

King James Version (KJV)

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.



k darn there is that "I" word again lol ok so taking this scripture and also genesis creation story 7 days right..... see what I'm saying. What if God created the world in 6 days of his time but to our world it would have been 6000 years. Am I making sence? I can't rule this out as impossible. I am not saying I believe it but I can't disbelieve it either. I do not believe we came from monkeys tho. I do believe He created us.
Click to expand...

Organic Material from non-organic material

Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then you might as well forgo the word "day". We didn't likely come from monkeys, although we're related to primates, apes are our closest relatives. (Other than the near human species in existence during the ice age).
 
Grey said:
Organic Material from non-organic material

Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

1. That was not done by purely naturalistic processes. Humans had their hand involved to get the results they got.
2. They did not get life from that. They got proteins. It's a far cry from life. Still no DNA, RNA, or a myrid of other things that are still missing for a single living cell.
3. When I pointing this out in my high school class and asked if they got life or only got proteins which are not life, I was told to stop asking questions.

#3 isn't really relevant, but that's why I don't believe this stuff. Too many questions unanswered, too much "stop questioning and just believe it" from the other side.
 
megaman125 said:
1. That was not done by purely naturalistic processes. Humans had their hand involved to get the results they got.
2. They did not get life from that. They got proteins. It's a far cry from life. Still no DNA, RNA, or a myrid of other things that are still missing for a single living cell.
3. When I pointing this out in my high school class and asked if they got life or only got proteins which are not life, I was told to stop asking questions.

#3 isn't really relevant, but that's why I don't believe this stuff. Too many questions unanswered, too much "stop questioning and just believe it" from the other side.
Click to expand...
I see your point but to unbelievers religion leaves unanswered questions too. but I think it is answered. So interesting you were told to basicaly shut up hmmmm exactly what I'm teaching my kids never stop questioning never no matter what authority is is.
 
megaman125 said:
1. That was not done by purely naturalistic processes. Humans had their hand involved to get the results they got.
2. They did not get life from that. They got proteins. It's a far cry from life. Still no DNA, RNA, or a myrid of other things that are still missing for a single living cell.
3. When I pointing this out in my high school class and asked if they got life or only got proteins which are not life, I was told to stop asking questions.

#3 isn't really relevant, but that's why I don't believe this stuff. Too many questions unanswered, too much "stop questioning and just believe it" from the other side.
Click to expand...

Well, after a billion years do you think it's possible those proteins may have turned into something else?
Problem is we don't live a billion years so we can't see the results. The point of the experiment was to
show how the building blocks of life COULD have formed on the primordial earth - and it accomplished
this task.
 
megaman125 said:
1. That was not done by purely naturalistic processes. Humans had their hand involved to get the results they got.
2. They did not get life from that. They got proteins. It's a far cry from life. Still no DNA, RNA, or a myrid of other things that are still missing for a single living cell.
3. When I pointing this out in my high school class and asked if they got life or only got proteins which are not life, I was told to stop asking questions.

#3 isn't really relevant, but that's why I don't believe this stuff. Too many questions unanswered, too much "stop questioning and just believe it" from the other side.
Click to expand...

They replicated an enclosed early earth like atmosphere, with volcanic elements present. And that's why I said

Organic Material from non-organic material protein is organic

I also said earlier Organic matter has come from non-life if the mix is right, the only open question is when and how that synthesizes into an organism.

Just because we don't know how yet, considering we don't have millions of years to wait on our proteins to synthesize, doesn't mean it didn't likely happen. If you can get organic material from inorganic material, I don't see it as impossible.
 
IronChariots said:
Well, after a billion years do you think it's possible those proteins may have turned into something else?
Click to expand...

You mean other than decayed/destroyed proteins? No. There's zero evidence that those proteins would magically turn into living cells after billions of years, that's just speculation you want me to accept as true with only speculation as your basis.

Problem is we don't live a billion years so we can't see the results. The point of the experiment was to
show how the building blocks of life COULD have formed on the primordial earth - and it accomplished
this task.
Click to expand...

The atheists have been claiming we definetly went from non-life to life through nothing but naturalistic processes, and the Milly-Urey experiment was the evidence they gave for that. But here you say they only got "the building blocks of life." If they got life from non-life, then it wouldn't be labeled as building blocks, it would simply be labeled as life. But it's not labeled as life, because they didn't get life. So once again, there is no evidence for the transition of non-life to life under naturalism. I mentioned before there's a myrid of things missing for an actual living cell.

One last thing to address is the whole "well we don't live billions of years so we can't see it." That's just an excuse to sweep your problems under the rug.

A: Hey look, here's a problem.
B: No it's not, billions of years did it.

A: How do you know billions of years did it, or that billions of years could even do such a thing?
B: ...uhh... just believe that billions of years did it, becuase with billions of years anything is magically possible.

This sounds like the atheists' "god of the gaps" argument, just replacing "God did it" with "billions of years did it."
 
Grey said:
They replicated an enclosed early earth like atmosphere, with volcanic elements present. And that's why I said

Organic Material from non-organic material protein is organic

I also said earlier Organic matter has come from non-life if the mix is right, the only open question is when and how that synthesizes into an organism.

Just because we don't know how yet, considering we don't have millions of years to wait on our proteins to synthesize, doesn't mean it didn't likely happen. If you can get organic material from inorganic material, I don't see it as impossible.
Click to expand...

Hey look, it's the faith in science argument. Just believe that maybe one day they'll have the answers, but for now, just believe that it happened, you just have to believe.

And btw, as I mentioned before, the only reason they got proteins is because they had to tamper with the experiement. They didn't just set up a hypothesised primital earth and let it go, they still had to stick their hands in and manipulate it to get the protein. The only thing this experiment proves is that it takes an intelligent designer to get from non-life/non-organic to life/organic material.

And I don't care how many times you want to keep changing the terminology, first it was non-life to life, then you said it's non-life to proteins/building blocks, and now you're saying it's non-organic material to organic material, and soon you'll probably change the terms from material to something else. It doesn't matter how many times you shift the terminology or play semantics, the fact is it doesn't prove life can arise from non-life, and there's no reason to believe such a thing is even possible. You simply don't have the required evidence.
 
megaman125 said:
You mean other than decayed/destroyed proteins? No. There's zero evidence that those proteins would magically turn into living cells after billions of years, that's just speculation you want me to accept as true with only speculation as your basis.



The atheists have been claiming we definetly went from non-life to life through nothing but naturalistic processes, and the Milly-Urey experiment was the evidence they gave for that. But here you say they only got "the building blocks of life." If they got life from non-life, then it wouldn't be labeled as building blocks, it would simply be labeled as life. But it's not labeled as life, because they didn't get life. So once again, there is no evidence for the transition of non-life to life under naturalism. I mentioned before there's a myrid of things missing for an actual living cell.

One last thing to address is the whole "well we don't live billions of years so we can't see it." That's just an excuse to sweep your problems under the rug.

A: Hey look, here's a problem.
B: No it's not, billions of years did it.

A: How do you know billions of years did it, or that billions of years could even do such a thing?
B: ...uhh... just believe that billions of years did it, becuase with billions of years anything is magically possible.

This sounds like the atheists' "god of the gaps" argument, just replacing "God did it" with "billions of years did it."
Click to expand...

The fact is you do not know what the amino acids could have turned into after a billion years. That's ok, we both can agree on that.
I'm not saying billions of years did it but I am saying that with the fossil record and if the age of the earth really is 4.54 billion years old then it's a definite possibility.

[h=3]Later results[/h]One common creationist argument is that the Urey-Miller experiment only created a few of the amino acids used by life, not life itself. Another is that the gases used by Miller and Urey were different from those actually present on primordial Earth.
According to a paper published in Science in 2008, researchers were able to reanalyze the residues from one of the original experiments, and found several amino acids that instruments in the 1950s were not sensitive enough to detect. In other words, Miller and Urey were more successful than they realized.
The paper also argues that the atmosphere used in that experiment may have been locally realistic. That is, that mixture of gases would not occur throughout the planet, but only near volcanic eruptions.
Later studies during the 1960s by Joan Oró, et al., that used atmospheric conditions that better match the actual (hypothesized) atmosphere of early Earth turned out to give even better results, turning up for example adenine, which is one of the nucleotide bases that form the "backbone" of DNA.

Abiogenesis - Iron Chariots Wiki
 
megaman125 said:
Hey look, it's the faith in science argument. Just believe that maybe one day they'll have the answers, but for now, just believe that it happened, you just have to believe.

And btw, as I mentioned before, the only reason they got proteins is because they had to tamper with the experiement. They didn't just set up a hypothesised primital earth and let it go, they still had to stick their hands in and manipulate it to get the protein. The only thing this experiment proves is that it takes an intelligent designer to get from non-life/non-organic to life/organic material.

And I don't care how many times you want to keep changing the terminology, first it was non-life to life, then you said it's non-life to proteins/building blocks, and now you're saying it's non-organic material to organic material, and soon you'll probably change the terms from material to something else. It doesn't matter how many times you shift the terminology or play semantics, the fact is it doesn't prove life can arise from non-life, and there's no reason to believe such a thing is even possible. You simply don't have the required evidence.
Click to expand...

Science is a faith is a statement that reflects a straw man or equivocation fallacy propagated by apologists to attempt to discredit "belief" in science as being no more sound than belief in God. Science does contain philosophical underpinnings which are unprovable, which thus require "faith" in the epistemological sense. However, science distinguishes itself from purely faith-based beliefs in the same way that philosophy does; by the application of logic. Science also goes one step further by adhering to demonstrable, repeatable experiments and empirical data.
Furthermore, the statement indirectly generates a false dilemma by positioning science as "the dogma of the atheist" and as a tool to attack religious believers. Science is neither the dogma of the atheist nor a tool to attack theists; two examples that illustrate this are an individual who does not believe in god but performs a daily ritual to summon good luck, and an individual who does believe in God yet nonetheless follows the scientific method in his or her research. Science simply is not synonymous with atheism.

Science is a faith - Iron Chariots Wiki
 
megaman125 said:
Hey look, it's the faith in science argument. Just believe that maybe one day they'll have the answers, but for now, just believe that it happened, you just have to believe.

And btw, as I mentioned before, the only reason they got proteins is because they had to tamper with the experiement. They didn't just set up a hypothesised primital earth and let it go, they still had to stick their hands in and manipulate it to get the protein. The only thing this experiment proves is that it takes an intelligent designer to get from non-life/non-organic to life/organic material.

And I don't care how many times you want to keep changing the terminology, first it was non-life to life, then you said it's non-life to proteins/building blocks, and now you're saying it's non-organic material to organic material, and soon you'll probably change the terms from material to something else. It doesn't matter how many times you shift the terminology or play semantics, the fact is it doesn't prove life can arise from non-life, and there's no reason to believe such a thing is even possible. You simply don't have the required evidence.
Click to expand...

There was no manipulation, a sealed chamber with water, the elements, and electrodes. Nor did I say that I saw the theory as legitimate. If you can get organic material from nonorganic, it doesn't seem that insane to think that life could synthesize from it. That being said, this is why I say I don't know.
 
Oh, I forgot something else. This one fits quite perfectly here.

53. You are a person who absolutely believes that life came from nonlife, yet absolutely deny the possibility of anyone rising from the dead.
 
megaman125 said:
Oh, I forgot something else. This one fits quite perfectly here.

53. You are a person who absolutely believes that life came from nonlife, yet absolutely deny the possibility of anyone rising from the dead.
Click to expand...

We already discussed absolute certainty, dead cells are different than proto-cells.

This thread has veered off the on-topic road, so I think I can help by creating a new thread and just letting peoples opinions reside here. http://christianchat.com/miscellaneous/67680-argument-thread.html#post1093480
 
I find it hilarous that you don't like it when I continually point out inconsistencies with your beliefs and behavior. Funny how before I posted that, you were all for arguing about abiogenesis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back