Just a question to atheists and darwinist?

[Toro]

Are racists Christians?

 

[Freeman]

Are racists Christians?

the racists are the darwinists, darwin was the hero of Hitler...

 

[Gadawg73]

From the fossil record, to the modern science of genetics, all evidence supports the fact that life evolved from the single cell to the present diversity. The majority of Christians find the evidence of evolution convincing, and not in conflict with their religion.

I consider myself an agnostic simply because I personally do not know if a diety exist or not. What you know or don't know, I have no way of knowing. So if you say that you believe, I do not find that to challenge my belief, or lack of it, at all. However, if you say that the fossil record, of which I have seen a great deal, is something other than it is, then you had best have evidence.

Well said.
However, those that believe the Spaghetti monster, or any other of the many different versions in many different religions, is coming in a space ship trailing the Hale Bot comet to save them will never consider the fossil record as evidence of anything. Science is ridiculed as it conflicts with their religous dogma.
Faith and beliefs are great but they are never science.

 

[AquaAthena]

So Just because I cannot clearly understand how humans came into being it means God exists?

There are many things I do not understand but it just proves that I do not understand everything.

We came into existence the same way God did??

 

[Toronado3800]

there is only one God, and it's the same God of 3 religions, but it's the humans and who falsify the message of god to invent trinity and other concepts.
__________________[/B]

Only one god? How the heck would someone prove that? Proving God does or DOES NOT exist is pretty difficult. I'm not saying Zeus exist and the Jewish God doesn't. Or that either is the "right" one to worship. Who knows.

all living fossils refute all form of evolution

Are you saying fossil evidence refutes evolution? So elephants, the carrion crow, apes, and all haven't changed over the years?

Really, we can hurry up evidence and breed white dogs with black spots that can't hear in a few years. Imagine what a few thousand, few hundred thousand, or few million years can do to that.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

I have always believed that atheism and darwinism are just another doctrines or religions ...no more.

atheism/darwinism are based upon matrerialism...but their arguments and swear at theists is laughable.

hence I want to ask what is the proof of atheists of their doctrine (God non-existence)?
z'atheists should show a materialist proof of their doctrine since it's always their path of reasoning.

good luck

Fundamental rule of argument... It is the person who makes the proposition who has to prove it.

While I have no proof of the existence of Gd one way or the other, and honestly, I don't really care that much about it either way, but I find your assertions silly and I don't believe any of them.

Doesn't matter if your gd is Venus, Zoroaster, Astarte, Baal, Buddah, Vishnu, Marx or Global Warming or the GREAT ZIONIST CONSPIRACY. I don't believe in any of them.


As to Darwinism.... It is a scientific theory that made its best attempt to explain observed phenomena. Ol Charlie made lots of really funny mistakes, and science has moved on from a lot of his errors, but it is still a more consistent and logical explanation of what you see out there than the stories told in Genesis. You can take Darwin's theories and use and abuse them. They are predictive and testable. And for an explanation, that is my basic rule.

 

[amrchaos]

I have always believed that atheism and darwinism are just another doctrines or religions ...no more.

atheism/darwinism are based upon matrerialism...but their arguments and swear at theists is laughable.

hence I want to ask what is the proof of atheists of their doctrine (God non-existence)?
z'atheists should show a materialist proof of their doctrine since it's always their path of reasoning.

good luck

A quick question on Christiainity before you go to deep into this thread.

Is it true that

1)The God of Judaism is the same God of Christianity?

2) The Jewish God has a compact with Jews that Christians claim was voided

3) This contract was voided when Christ died on the cross?

4)Christ never stated that this voided the original compact between God and man?

5)The arguement for the erasure of such contract is actually convoluted and questionable unless you repeat Christian authority. The same authorities that have a vested interest in the promotion of Christianity?

6)This is not the only questionable theological position Christianity has taken when it concerns the basis and purpose of the religion.

there is only one God, and it's the same God of 3 religions, but it's the humans and who falsify the message of god to invent trinity and other concepts.

Like Christ dying on the cross for your salvation

If you read the bible some, you would learn that salvation is gained by believing in Christ. No "Martyrdom" is necessary for your reaching salvation!


I know that John is virtually littered with Jesus saying such things as like 'believe in me and you shall have eternal life.' One particular passage that states this is John 5:24, and Christ was along way from being posted up as a Dionysis figure at the time.

 

[Toro]

Are racists Christians?

the racists are the darwinists, darwin was the hero of Hitler...

So you're a Darwinist then.

 

[amrchaos]

Well that was interesting. Actually sharks and crocs are in there as well. But is it a surprise that some species haven't evolved because there was no need to do so?

Before you can look for evolution, don't you need a record of the environment during the period that evolution supose to have happened? Think about it--no change in environment, little change in the species involved(they have reached or come close to their ideal)

By the way--here is a link to the publication called Nature and their articles on evoluton.
http://www.nature.com/evoeco/index.html

I would seriously doubt arguement on science from a theological perspective or taken from books more than 50 years ago since they are archaic and out of touch with modern scientific theories. Science changes over time to adjust to noted observations. Theology cannot change over time because it has vested interest in being right the first time. That is my opinion on this matter.

 

[amrchaos]

A hint towards evolution in the body is our own immune system. Its ability to adapt to contact dieseases and foreign objects in the body tend to suggest a stronger mechanism for changing environment. Of course, this is not proof of evolution, but it tends to imply that if a god created us from clay, he equiped our bodies with a contigency for changing internal circumstances.

Kind of strange that this same god refused to equip our bodies to adjust to slowly changing external circumstnces. You know--like the environment.

Finally, I have a question.
How does evolution challenge any holy texts? If anything, Darwin pointed out that living organisms change with their environment and the change is such that they can survive. How does this contradictt what theologians teach?

 

[amrchaos]

I don't believe on father christmas; I can prove it
I don't believe on Dracula, I can prove it.

atheism is a doctrine, and followers should prove it "scientifically"!, otherwise they must stay agnostics at least.

I don't believe you made such a statement.

Where can one find a doctrine outlining atheism?

Do you have one?

 

[froggy]

Athesim? I need no faith nor religion to NOT believe in something that cannot be proven.

Aah! but you have faith in yourself to believe there is know God. Thus your lying to yourself as well as others. You do need faith.

 

[froggy]

Darwin was a christian

wiki.answers.com/Q/Was_Charles_Darwin_a_Christian


Although Darwin originally trained in theology and had studied the work of William Paley, he at some point rejected the Christian faith, if in fact, he ever had it. Some have attributed this to bitterness after the early death of his young daughter Annie, although there were undoubtedly other factors. It has even been suggested that Darwin wrote 'The Origin..' as a specific rebuttal of Paley's work. The idea which has circulated that Darwin 'repented on his death bed' apparently has no basis in fact.

 

[rdean]

From the fossil record, to the modern science of genetics, all evidence supports the fact that life evolved from the single cell to the present diversity. The majority of Christians find the evidence of evolution convincing, and not in conflict with their religion.

I consider myself an agnostic simply because I personally do not know if a diety exist or not. What you know or don't know, I have no way of knowing. So if you say that you believe, I do not find that to challenge my belief, or lack of it, at all. However, if you say that the fossil record, of which I have seen a great deal, is something other than it is, then you had best have evidence.

completely false!
all living fossils has defied evolution hypothsis and even refute it
"The evolution in action" of J. Huxley and other biologists is simply the observation of demographic facts, local fluctuations of genotypes, geographical distributions. Often the species concerned have remained practically unchanged for hundreds of centuries! Fluctuation as a result of circumstances, with prior modification of the genome, does not imply evolution, and we have tangible proof of this in many panchronic species-
Pierre-Paul Grassé, Treatise of Zoology
-Bats have remained
unchanged for 50 million years

-a bony of 210 millions years unchanged

-A 410-million-year-old Cœlacanth fossil

Cœlacanth was baptised as "missing link" before fishing tens of it in 40s

-A 450-million-year-old horseshoe crab is no different to specimens alive today.

-Australian lungfish from the Devonian period (408-360 million years ago) unchanged!

-A 155-Million-Year-Old Drogonfly

-lizard unchanged since 40 million years

-a skate presents exactly the same characteristics of today and dated from 245 million years.

so where's this f*king evolution "fact" ??

You know that information is out there and available. If you want to play "gotcha" games on an Internet board, then fine, but at least admit that you don't really want to learn.

 

[rdean]

Are racists Christians?

the racists are the darwinists, darwin was the hero of Hitler...

Nazi Christmas celebration in 1926: "Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews ... The work that Christ started but could not finish, I -- Adolf Hitler -- will conclude."

WikiAnswers - What religion did Hitler say he was if any

 

[amrchaos]

Athesim? I need no faith nor religion to NOT believe in something that cannot be proven.

Aah! but you have faith in yourself to believe there is know God. Thus your lying to yourself as well as others. You do need faith.

Boy, you really know how to twist words around, dontcha froggy.

Let me understand your point--atheism is impossible since citizen must believe in god regardless of what he says.

Well then, try this one on for size.

Since atheism is impossible due to that logic,every one must believe in god. This creates a contradicition in the need for a Bible or any holy book. Why teach a religion when it is impossible to escape the religious belief? Thus holy books and places of worship are truly unnecessary since people will believe--regardless of what the individual think.


It seems that all religions now need a new fundemental purpose, since teaching about god is not necessary for an individual to believe in god!! Or is it possible that religion is not necessary? Regardless, religion must serve an ulterior motive besides the teaching of god. Whether it is to subvert a population to machinations of a mad man or whatever, religion roles is not to teach about God or his commands.


How do you like that conclusion of your reasoning, froggy? Or did I miss something?


I bet you never realized that atheism is necessary in order for religion to have a purpose.

 

[rdean]

I don't believe on father christmas; I can prove it
I don't believe on Dracula, I can prove it.

atheism is a doctrine, and followers should prove it "scientifically"!, otherwise they must stay agnostics at least.

You can't prove that Dracula doesn't exist. You can't prove that "Father Christmas" doesn't exist. But no sane person believes they do exist.

 

[amrchaos]

I don't believe on father christmas; I can prove it
I don't believe on Dracula, I can prove it.

atheism is a doctrine, and followers should prove it "scientifically"!, otherwise they must stay agnostics at least.

You can't prove that Dracula doesn't exist. You can't prove that "Father Christmas" doesn't exist. But no sane person believes they do exist.

Dracula and Father Christmas are modeled after real people

seriously

 

[froggy]

Athesim? I need no faith nor religion to NOT believe in something that cannot be proven.

Aah! but you have faith in yourself to believe there is know God. Thus your lying to yourself as well as others. You do need faith.

Boy, you really know how to twist words around, dontcha froggy.

Let me understand your point--atheism is impossible since citizen must believe in god regardless of what he says.

Well then, try this one on for size.

Since atheism is impossible due to that logic,every one must believe in god. This creates a contradicition in the need for a Bible or any holy book. Why teach a religion when it is impossible to escape the religious belief? Thus holy books and places of worship are truly unnecessary since people will believe--regardless of what the individual think.


It seems that all religions now need a new fundemental purpose, since teaching about god is not necessary for an individual to believe in god!! Or is it possible that religion is not necessary? Regardless, religion must serve an ulterior motive besides the teaching of god. Whether it is to subvert a population to machinations of a mad man or whatever, religion roles is not to teach about God or his commands.


How do you like that conclusion of your reasoning, froggy? Or did I miss something?


I bet you never realized that atheism is necessary in order for religion to have a purpose.

You said you didn't need faith, but you use it to hold to your idea there is no God. I didn't say you had faith in God.

 

[rdean]

I don't believe on father christmas; I can prove it
I don't believe on Dracula, I can prove it.

atheism is a doctrine, and followers should prove it "scientifically"!, otherwise they must stay agnostics at least.

You can't prove that Dracula doesn't exist. You can't prove that "Father Christmas" doesn't exist. But no sane person believes they do exist.

Dracula and Father Christmas are modeled after real people

seriously

I suspect that facets of all magical creatures are based on "someone real".

Funny, I was working at NASA in White Sands for two weeks and the head of the department I was working at was from Transylvania. His accent was so "Bela Lugosi". I asked him where he was from and he told me to guess. I said Transylvania and he admitted I was right. He also told me that he didn't know Dracula was based on "Vlad the Conqueror" until he came to the US. He said in his country, he's called "Vlad the Protector" because he protected the country against invasion.