Atheism on the rise in every single US state.

[batman2883]

harlem on the rise

[td4mvp21]

But how do you know that a day to God is the same as a day to us? Perhaps the Earth revolved much more slowly then In fact, weren't the stars created after the Earth? That would imply that a day may not mean the same to us as it does to Him.

Good point.

[Brutalis]

Most of the people I know think we die and that's that, game over. No afterlife or anything.

[MiamiHeat]

angel_Luv


Genesis says the Light was created FIRST. It says he separated day from night on day 1.

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

But wait a second, day and night is only a product of the rotation of the earth. The Sun never stops shining.

So, if the Earth isn't formed yet until DAY 3, then when "God" created light, how could he possibly create day and night? The Sun, in space, never stops shining. "Days" are an illusion of earth's rotation.

then Genesis is proven to have a lack of understanding about the universe, in accordance with human knowledge at the time.

GAME OVER

[ElMuerto]

Most of the people I know think we die and that's that, game over. No afterlife or anything.

[MiamiHeat]

Also in Genesis :

And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

"God" creates the Earth and puts VEGETATION on it on the third day...... but doesn't create the SUN until the FOURTH DAY!

Laugh out loud!

This creates huge problems :

1) Vegetation functions on photosynthesis. Need the sun to live. That's their energy source.

2) If you listen to the Bible, the Earth would now be OLDER than the Sun?

3) All the Stars in the sky are now younger than the Earth too!

GAME OVER TIMES 2

[LnGrrrR]

generally, not really. There's plenty of room in the DNA for something called Adaptation, which means, for example, a bird may completely change its coloring, type of beak, even overall size - but never truly evolved, instead staying within the overall constraints of its genetic coding.

i don't act like I know the answer to this question: there's plenty of evidence which DOES support evolution. But there's relatively only a tiny bit of evidence for abiogenesis which means something started us up, even if natural selection was the ultimately decider in who lived and who died.

The theory of evolution though is separate from abiogenesis. Evolution of creatures has alot of strong research behind it, abiogenesis, much less.

[LnGrrrR]

There is no middle ground. The Bible is either true or it is not.
I believe it is true- thus no need for any other point of view.

I respectfully disagree, but you may think as you wish.

[MiamiHeat]

I predict angel_luv will choose to close her eyes at my posts up there

Genesis is proven bs.

[ALVAREZ6]

I know you're pretty old but even you have no lived long enough to have been there since the beginning of time and to know for sure.

You can only choose your source and make your best guess just like the rest of us.

I'll choose the thousands of astronomers and other scientists with PhDs over some clowns from over 2,000 years ago who still believed the earth was flat.

[ALVAREZ6]

As I told T-Long, I support Science and it's discoveries so long as it gives God the glory He is due.

Well you can't negate scientific findings simply because they are contradictory to many principles that religions are based on...well, technically you can, but it's not wise to do so. If all scientific findings had to legally abide by christian principles, we wouldn't know compared to what we know now, and it's precisely this which christianity and other religions are based on...keeping the followers ignorant and/or scared to control them.

[I Love Me Some Me]

1. That never made sense to me. When God comes down, can't I believe in him then? Isn't a soul eternal?

2. Again, if God has found a way to convince you to follow his word, why hasn't he found a way to convince me yet? Doesn't seem quite fair.



3. Is it your opinion that only those who believe in God can be truly moral?

1. How can you expect the reward reserved for those who have faith, when you never truly had faith? "Blessed are those who do not see, yet believe."

2. Seek, and ye shall find. We are both presented with that same evidence. I approach it looking for reasons to believe, you approach it looking for reasons to NOT believe.

Also...this is where your free will comes into play. You don't have to believe if you don't want to. You can choose not to, and hope you're right.

3. No, that is not my opinion. In fact, I contend that there are many people who live their lives with a high moral conviction, and reap the rewards of their good actions that God has promised. However, they may miss heaven if they do not believe in Jesus.

[angel_luv]

Miami Heat. I apologize for not answering your posts sooner.

I was away from my computer. I was not ignoring you.

Did you know that before the Fall of Man, snakes did not crawl on their belly ( that happened after God cursed the snake for being used by Satan) and, as the talking serpent in Genesis 3 did not shock Eve, it s very possible that it was not an unusual occurence for man to directly communicate with some ( all?) the animals.

Amazing? Yes! But true.

My present understanding does not dictate my faith in the Bible, rather my faith in the Bible is what dictates my mind.

There are many, many things I do not have an explanation for.

But I serve the God who knows all, created all, and to whom all belongs, and He gives me all I need in daily knowledge as well as physical and emotional sustenance.


When this earth has passed away, (and it will!) science will perish with it. But God is eternal.
I choose God- always and forever.

You should too. I pray you do.

[angel_luv]

Genesis 3:1-5- Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"
The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "
"You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

The above text explains that the serpent was more crafty than any of the other animals, so maybe it was the only one who talked.
This was a point God for whatever reason did not deem necessary to clarify.
But notice Eve responds to the serpent as if it is quite natural to do so.
I think that is cool.

Genesis 3: 13-15 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?"
The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this,
"Cursed are you above all the livestock
and all the wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.
And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring [a] and hers;
he will crush [b] your head,
and you will strike his heel."

The underlined shows where God sentenced snakes to crawl on their belly, making it clear that snakes got around previously by some other means, perhaps it had feet or claws. Maybe it flew.
The Bible does not say.

[angel_luv]

All right. Good night all.

[I Love Me Some Me]

1. drunkeness in public is currently illegal, so I think we can all agree it's already wrong.

how is exactly is drunkeness in your own house evil?



2. Like i said, you can try to explain it, but it is pretty clear in what it says.

and James is the only one that pretty much references the importance of works.

Paul continues to preach that faith through grace is all you need.

If Paul is right, then what James says is irrelevant.

3. If I am a mass murderer and I repent and believe at the last second, I am in Heaven.

If I repent and believe at the age of 21 but go the rest of my life on killing spree after unrepentant killing spree, do I still get into Heaven?

1. Yes, because nothing bad can happen when you're drunk at home.

2. I can explain it, but you've already made up your mind.

The two are not mutually exclusive, and are in no way contradictory.

3. I can't say it any easier for you Blake...believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shall be saved.

[Phenomanul]

Well you can't negate scientific findings simply because they are contradictory to many principles that religions are based on...well, technically you can, but it's not wise to do so. If all scientific findings had to legally abide by christian principles, we wouldn't know compared to what we know now, and it's precisely this which christianity and other religions are based on...keeping the followers ignorant and/or scared to control them.

Really???

I guess you've repeatedly heard those revisionist lies stated on so many occasions that you've actually come believe them??? Talk about mass deception...

Sir Isaac Newton (widely regarded as one of the most brilliant men to ever walk the earth) spent as much time writing about theology as he did about math and science... It was Newton's belief in GOD that compeled him to seek out the ordered mechanisms and laws that could only be produced by His hand...

Many other prominent Christian scientists contributed to the rise of 'western' civilization...

To say that Cristianity held Science back is an outright lie...

Don't confuse the "Dark ages" with Christianity...

Check out this article:

Daniel Graves, author of Scientists of Faith and Doctors Who Followed Christ, writes: "Many of the sciences derive directly from the work of a Christian or were greatly influenced at their inception by a Christian. … It may seem an outrageous claim that Christians were seminal to much of what dominates modern scientific thinking, but it is true. There is hardly a science or scientific idea which cannot trace its inception as a viable theory to some Christian."


A careful study of history reveals that technology and modern science was, in fact, pioneered by Christians. The case is made by Dr. Ian Hutchison and Dr. Loren Eiseley (below) and at the essays found at the subsequent links.


Ian H.Hutchinson, Head of Department of Nuclear Energy. Plasma Science and Fusion Center and Department of Nuclear Engineering, Massachusetts Ins ute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA. ASA Conference, 4 August 2002. "Science: Christian and Natural," http://hutchinson.belmont.ma.us/asa2002/.

Going further, though, I believe there is a constructive case to be made for the phrase Christian Science.

First, as represented by the theme of this conference "Christian Pioneers", we should recognize that modern science is built upon the foundational work of people who more than anything else were Christians. Christians were the pioneers of the revolution of thought that brought about our modern understanding of the world. MIT, my home ins ution, the high-temple of science and technology in the United States, has a pseudo-Greek temple architecture about its main buildings. The fluted columns are topped not with baccanalian freizes, but with the names of the historical heroes of science (not to mention William Barton Rogers, the founder). A rough assessment was carried out by a few of us some years ago of the fraction of the people listed there who were Christians. The estimate we arrived at was about 60%.

Any list of the giants of physical science would include Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Boyle, Pascal, Newton, Pasteur, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin, all of whom, despite denominational and doctrinal differences among them, and opposition that some experienced from church authorities, were deeply committed to Jesus Christ.

List of prominent scientists who admitted that the universe is created by a Creator and who are known by their cited attributes are:

Sir Isaac Newton (the father of calculus and physics)

Johannes Kepler (the father of physical astronomy)

James Clerk Maxwell (one of the world's most renown physicists - father of electromagnetism)

Robert Boyle (the father of modern chemistry)

Iona William Petty (known for his studies on statistics and modern economy)

Michael Faraday (one of the greatest physicists of all times)

Gregory Mendel (the father of genetics; he invalidated Darwinism with his discoveries in the science of genetics)

Louis Pasteur (the greatest name in bacteriology; he declared war on Darwinism)

John Dalton (the father of atomic theory)

Blaise Pascal (one of the most important mathematicians)

John Ray (the most important name in British natural history)

Nicolaus Steno (a famous stratiographer who investigated earth layers)

Carolus Linnaeus (the father of biological classification)

Georges Cuvier (the founder of comparative anatomy)

Max Planck (one of the fathers of quantum physics)

Matthew Maury (the founder of oceanography)

Thomas Anderson (one the pioneers in the field of organic chemistry)

William Thompson, "Lord Kelvin" (founder of thermodynamics)


Second, I observed over the years in my interactions with Christians in academia, that far from scientists being weakly represented in the ranks of the faithful, as one would expect if science and faith are incompatible, they are strongly overrepresented. The sociological evidence has been studied systematically for example by Robert Wuthnow [Robert Wuthnow, The Struggle for America's Soul, Eerdmanns, Grand Rapids, (1989), p146.], who established that while academics undoubtedly tend to be believers in lower proportion than the US population as a whole, among academics, scientists were proportionally more likely to be Christians that those in the non-science disciplines. The common misconception that scientists were or are inevitably sundered from the Christian faith by their science is simply false.

Third, the question arises, why did modern science grow up almost entirely in the West, where Christian thinking held sway? There were civilizations of comparable stability, prosperity, and in many cases technology, in China, Japan, and India. Why did they not develop science? It is acknowledged that arabic countries around the end of the first millenium were more advanced in mathematics, and their libraries kept safe eventually for Christendom much of the Greek wisdom of the ancients. Why did not their learning blossom into the science we now know? More particularly, if Andrew White's portrait of history, that the church dogmatically opposed all the "dangerous innovations" of science, and thereby stunted scientific development for hundreds of years, why didn't science rapidly evolve in these other cultures?

A case that has been made cogently by Stanley Jaki [Stanley L. Jaki, The road of science and the ways to God, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, (1978).], amongst others, is that far from being an atmosphere stifling to science, the Christian world view of the West was the fertile cultural and philosophical soil in which science grew and flourished. He argues that it was precisely the theology of Christianity which created that fertile intellectual environment. The teaching that the world is the free but contingent creation of a rational Creator, worthy of study on its own merits because it is "good", and the belief that because our rationality is in the image of the creator, we are capable of understanding the creation: these are theological encouragements to the work of empirical science. Intermingled with the desire to benefit humankind for Christian charity's sake, and enabled by the printing press to record and communicate results for posterity, the work of science became a force that gathered momentum despite any of the strictures of a threatened religious hierarchy.

So I suggest that there is a deeper reason why scientists are puzzled about how one might pursue a Christian Science distinguished from what has been the approach developed over the past half millenium. It is that modern science is already in a very serious sense Christian. It germinated in and was nurtured by the Christian philosophy of creation, it was developed and established through the work of largely Christian pioneers, and it continues to draw Christians to its endeavours today.

[MiamiHeat]

Christians are among the possible suspects for the burning of the Library of Alexandria

Christianity did indeed keep science back, and killed/persecuted any man who tried to say anything that was in conflict with the Bible.

[baseline bum]

You had a solid post until this.

Sir Isaac Newton (widely regarded as one of the most brilliant men to ever walk the earth) spent as much time writing about theology as he did about math and science... It was Newton's belief in GOD that compeled him to seek out the ordered mechanisms and laws that could only be produced by His hand...

[MiamiHeat]

I wouldn't call it solid

He listed Galileo.... the poor man would have been put to a swift death by the Inquisition if he renounced the Church.

I'm sure if I go down that list, I can find other bull ones.


or, you could just post a list of realists/non-believers and that would take up the whole thread.

[MiamiHeat]

FIRST POST

Genesis says the Light was created FIRST. It says he separated day from night on day 1.

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

But wait a second, day and night is only a product of the rotation of the earth. The Sun never stops shining.

So, if the Earth isn't formed yet until DAY 3, then when "God" created light (Sun isn't even created yet, so what light is Genesis referring to?), how could he possibly create day and night? The Sun, in space, never stops shining. "Days" are an illusion of earth's rotation.

then Genesis is proven to have a lack of understanding about the universe, in accordance with human knowledge at the time.

========================

========================

SECOND POST

Next we have................

"God" creates the Earth and puts VEGETATION on it on the third day...... but doesn't create the SUN until the FOURTH DAY!

Laugh out loud!

This creates huge problems :

1) Vegetation functions on photosynthesis. Need the sun to live. That's their energy source.

2) If you listen to the Bible, the Earth would now be OLDER than the Sun?

3) All the Stars in the sky are now younger than the Earth too!


Anyone care to take this on? This proves the Bible is already wrong in the first few chapters.

[50Bestspurever]

The bible is a nice fairy tale.

[Cane]

Nah, its a poorly written anthology of fairy tales that dehumanizes and exploits groups of people.

Christians should be ashamed of themselves for believing that crap.

[I Love Me Some Me]

FIRST POST

Genesis says the Light was created FIRST. It says he separated day from night on day 1.



But wait a second, day and night is only a product of the rotation of the earth. The Sun never stops shining.

So, if the Earth isn't formed yet until DAY 3, then when "God" created light (Sun isn't even created yet, so what light is Genesis referring to?), how could he possibly create day and night? The Sun, in space, never stops shining. "Days" are an illusion of earth's rotation.

then Genesis is proven to have a lack of understanding about the universe, in accordance with human knowledge at the time.

========================

========================

SECOND POST

Next we have................

"God" creates the Earth and puts VEGETATION on it on the third day...... but doesn't create the SUN until the FOURTH DAY!

Laugh out loud!

This creates huge problems :

1) Vegetation functions on photosynthesis. Need the sun to live. That's their energy source.

2) If you listen to the Bible, the Earth would now be OLDER than the Sun?

3) All the Stars in the sky are now younger than the Earth too!


Anyone care to take this on? This proves the Bible is already wrong in the first few chapters.

Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning, God created the heaven and the EARTH.

How did you conclude that earth was not created first?

[Phenomanul]

You had a solid post until this.

My point of contention still stands...

As for your reproach of my comment.... I only paraphrased what Newton himself wrote on many occasions.

The truth is that many of the scientific pioneers that shaped our western civilization believed in GOD. Attempts to hide this very fact has been one of the athiestic agenda's dirtiest tricks... even though it is remarkably easy to counter... by opening a history book.