(Sigh) I guess I will be the one to debate this guy instead of just ridiculing him. I hope I am not wasting my time.



In Buddhism, Sakyamuni's 4 noble trucths claim that suffering can be removed or suppressed via meditation. Why should I believe Christianity's claim over the Buddhist one?


Virtually every religion and every religious text either is or has been banned at sometime. China bans them all. Should believe in the one that is banned the most? Its probably not christianity.


I have read and stidied it and I hope something the FBI would send me would not have as many apparent contradictions as the Bible. Also I probably wouldn't accept J. Edgar Hoover as my personal savior after reading something from the FBi.


Creationism will never meet the requirements of the Scientific Method. Evolution does. This is why evolution is taught in schools. As a hypothesis, creationism has fas too many holes. In order to believe in Creationism, you are taking a leap of faith that the Scientific Method, from which every advance since the enlightenment comes, is wrong.
Once upon a time, both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches believed the world was flat and that the sun orbitted around the earth. Anyone who believed otherwise was a heretic. The Scientific Method proved correct in the end.

And even if schools started teach Creationism, which one would they teach? there are at least 4 different protestant creationist timelines out there. Which one do you teach? The Mormon one? The Baptist? The 7th day adventist? What about the Hindu creation stories? Do you teach them all?

No. if you feel so strongly about creationism, either homeschool your kids or send them to a private school.


I like the fact that your "logical explanation" for these is the devil. If the devil is responsible for the scientific method and the billions of lives saved by vaccines, improvements in hygiene, better food production, better medical understanding, and all other improvements ultimately brought through science, we should all become Satanists.

However, if you have answers for the questions I asked above, maybe I'm wrong.

Why do you think baptism is not necessary to be saved?

If you want to say that the bible has changed (not that you specifically have), i'd tell you to find any rabbi and ask him how anal the translators had to be when making a copy of anything they considered scripture, or to look at the dead sea scrolls in comparison to modern translation. You'd be the only one if you found a flaw in translation. Some words differ slightly in description, but nothing a strongs concordance or key word bible can't help you understand.

Just out of curiosity how many of you all have read through the new testament of the Bible ?

I have. I have also read the Gospel of Thomas and studied the "Q" gospel fairly extensively. By the way, have you read the new testament in both the oldest Greek Alexandrian text and latin vulgate versions? Just curious.

Curt

If jesus really existed.....

Why is there not any documentation of a man starting a religious revolution in a city, which at the time, was full of scholars who were documenting many smaller events? theres only one document that says that jesus ever even existed(which of course is the bible). This is a subject people often dismiss by saying "well i believe jesus existed but..." . BUt prove that he even existed before you try to prove he is the son of god etc... i don't mean to come off as anti christian. My best friend(who i consider my brother) is covered in christian tattoos just to give you an idea. i'm just curious if anyone can show that he did exist without saying things like "i just know" or " the bible says so".

Jason

The evolution of the eye. Try using something a little more original next time.

It's a bit OT, but that page you posted is brilliant!

What it says, in summary, is that critics of evolution ask how then lens, the retina, the pupil and so forth could have just spontaneously evolved one after the other.

Then it goes on to explain that the way this happened was that the lens, the retina, the pupil and so forth just spontaneously evolved one after the other.

No explanation of why, they just did.

Brilliant!

:lol:

Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight.

hmm, i think you're forgetting how recessive mutations are. Given the odds, tens, or hundreds of thousands of non mutants would have to survive for each mutant. Even if there is an advantage, lets be generous and say that there is 1 mutation for every 5000 not mutated (statistically that is quite generous). After the 2nd gen, 2, vs 10,000 (or whatever reproduction rate) and so on. By the time 1000 years have passed, even if the mutants had lazer beams for eyes and had an aggressive gene that wanted to kill non mutants, they could never catch up. A friend ran some numbers using a basic genetic table and simple math. He gave mutants a genetic advantage and equal reproduction rates. He stated that each mutant would kill 10 non mutants during breeding season to see when the mutants would catch up. They never did. In fact, after about 10 generations, the non mutant population was so significant that even with a genetic advantage, the mutants could never keep up. I realize animals are adaptable to their surroundings, but the fact remains that mutations we have actually witness take place have not been helpful, usually harmful, and even if they do reproduce, the recessive gene takes the back burner and rarely creates another mutant and the mutation is still not beneficial. Ever seen gene mutation studies in fruit flies? I don't really see that anti eye page as very brilliant either. He quotes "one scientist". I can quote a scientist too if you like. The evidence seems far fetched at best. More like a college kid doing a thesis. Albert Einstein believed in a creator, even Jesus. I'd like to see someone win that debate. :wink:

Boy, did you ever miss the point in Biology class.

The issue is that certain mutations will give a reproductive advantage, i.e. a light sensitive spot on a tiny multicellular organism will give an advantage in orientation, allowing it to better locate sources of energy, and therefor obtain more energy, therefor probably living a bit longer and surviving more breeding seasons.

Any basic artificial ecosystem program package can demonstrate this quickly and with ease. I even wrote one myself for a CS class about five years back. Let me know if you want it.

IF THE BIBLE AND CHRISTIANITY WERE NOT THE TRUTH

Why would anyone turn down a chance to have eternal life with no more pain, sorrow, or suffering?
Why is teaching Christianity, and having a Bible illegal in some countries?
Why, if you were to get a letter in the mail from the FBI, you would read it a number of times over. Then you would probably have a friend reread it to see if he gets the same idea of what it says to do, as you did. The Bible contains the words of God, with much evidence to prove it is the truth. Of how much more importance is the words of God, than any letter. Have you taken the time to read and study it?
Why are people in the atheistic community so opposed to having creation taught in our schools? If evolution can disprove creation, why don’t they allow the two to be taught together. Then let the students decide for themselves which is the most reasonable explanation for this world’s existence. The atheist, and people in left wing politics talk about hurting someone’s feelings by the teaching of Biblical creation. Well, what about the Christian who is offended by the teacher telling him he evolved from an ape, millions of years ago?
The only logical explanation for these things, is the existence of the great deceiver, the Devil. He dose not want people to come to a knowledge of the truth. This is because the only way he can get back at God, for casting him out of heaven, is to keep people from knowing what they must do to be saved. (2 Timothy 2:25-26)

This post is a perfect example of one of the reasons why I am no longer a Christian...

Your comment makes me think you didn't read my post. Even with a genetic advantage, whether in breeding or in physical capability, mutations are incredibly recessive. Try using the genetic table, calculate some advantage and using a comparison of numbers of mutated genes vs non mutated genes we commonly find, see which group is most dominant in numbers generation after generation.

hmm, i think you're forgetting how recessive mutations are. Given the odds, tens, or hundreds of thousands of non mutants would have to survive for each mutant. Even if there is an advantage, lets be generous and say that there is 1 mutation for every 5000 not mutated (statistically that is quite generous). After the 2nd gen, 2, vs 10,000 (or whatever reproduction rate) and so on. By the time 1000 years have passed, even if the mutants had lazer beams for eyes and had an aggressive gene that wanted to kill non mutants, they could never catch up. A friend ran some numbers using a basic genetic table and simple math. He gave mutants a genetic advantage and equal reproduction rates. He stated that each mutant would kill 10 non mutants during breeding season to see when the mutants would catch up. They never did. In fact, after about 10 generations, the non mutant population was so significant that even with a genetic advantage, the mutants could never keep up. I realize animals are adaptable to their surroundings, but the fact remains that mutations we have actually witness take place have not been helpful, usually harmful, and even if they do reproduce, the recessive gene takes the back burner and rarely creates another mutant and the mutation is still not beneficial. Ever seen gene mutation studies in fruit flies? I don't really see that anti eye page as very brilliant either. He quotes "one scientist". I can quote a scientist too if you like. The evidence seems far fetched at best. More like a college kid doing a thesis. Albert Einstein believed in a creator, even Jesus. I'd like to see someone win that debate. :wink:

I agree that some of your arguments are valid. I don't agree that creationism and science have to disagree though. Carbon dating might disagree, but then again, I haven't seen any proof that carbon dating is accurate and a few tests that would say otherwise.

Buddah himself studied Christ, just never believed in a savior. Why do you think many of his teachings are similar?

What about Math? If you carefully read the description of the Temple, you will find that round Items would have a diameter of 1 cubit and a circumference of 3 cubits. This means, for the ancient Israelites, the value of Pi was 3. Out of all the ancient people, Mayans, Greeks, Persians, etc, this value is the most off. Now as a Christian you can either 1) accept the fact that, though the Bible was inspired by a Supreme perfect God, it was written by imperfect men who made mistakes from time to time; or 2) determine that, because the bible is the word of god and therefore infallible, the value of Pi must be 3 and anyone who claims that Pi is 3.14 is going to hell. However no amount of the mental gymnastics you christians do when confronted with a scientific law will change the value of Pi to 3. Unless, of course, you use a rubber yard stick.