I would much rather that those who don't believe in a higher responsibility create these morals(flawed as they may be) then to take their beliefs to their logical conclusion. The scariest thing in the world is someone who takes atheism to its logical conclusion.
Why do you make a difference between "religion and atheism"? If you ask me, atheism is a religion where people believe that there is no God (a creator), but rather evolution. (Furthermore, the evolution doesnt explain the origin (creation) of life, but rather the development.)
"People do not believe in evolution because they have been led there by solid evidence. They are stampeded into the Darwinian community by superficial, emotional, and personal factors."
By choosing a religion (incl. atheism), you actually choose the meaning of your life.
(life for God vs. life for nothing). Also you choose between being a creation of God vs. having a monkey as grandpa.
...we don't know what technology Noah might have used to give each of the animals the best environment as possible. As for freshwater fish, Noah didn't need to have an aquarium. You are assuming that all the water around the earth had to be either SALTY or FRESH! And what basis do you have for this assumption? None. I personally would not know for sure whether the flood was all salty, partly salty in only certain regions of the globe, or all fresh, but I see no reason to not believe that some areas were salty and others fresh.
You people love science, and may love studying the universe. But what comfort it is to know that if we are faithful, a grand and glorious home awaits us! We will have eternity to explore the universe, explore new worlds---better than any graphics a computer game could ever give! We'll be right in touch with all the questions of science we ever dreamed! This just isn't about living in Heaven 'on a cloud playing a harp, singing with the angels and living with God forever.' People get a warped concept about what Heaven is all about. It is MUCH MUCH MORE than they could even begin to imagine. We will have eternity to take advantage of the most advanced technology in the universe---including who knows--perhaps mass panarama screens where we rewatch the history of the world unfold? In Heaven, we will be able to have our own powers to create and design our own planets...imagine designing your own planet just as you like...imagine eating the most delicious food ever tasted by living beings--food that our taste buds will automatically be adapted to! You may think I'm going nuts, but I'm only trying to emphasize that heaven is a lot more to look forward to than you could even speculate. It's only yours if you choose. It's pretty simple actually.
Since everywhere we look, we are not seeing five-assed monkeys falling out trees and being eaten by three-assed dogs, one could speculate that perhaps, just PERHAPS, mutations do not stick around.
It all boils down to one thing. People are trying in vain to explain the origins of the universe and the world without God, and it is just impossible. What that boils even further to is what's really sad. Not wanting any divine superior to rule over us or tell us what to do--to just do as you please without any restrictions of right or wrong. Whether this is admitted or not, that is the real 'crux' reason for why people's minds migrate toward the theories of the 'Big Bang' and Darwinism. No matter how hard one may try and rationalize that it is pure 'honesty', they will never convince me that the root of the matter is to be 'free' from worshipping an all intelligent master designer.
All your theories are fine and dandy, but just admit that there would be nothing wrong with killing all the homeless, all the starving in third world countries, all those on welfare, all those who are supported 100% by others if there is no God or Creator or some type of higher responsibility.
Second, if "loving your neighbor as yourself" was true for everyone on this planet, then we would have a perfect world with no violence, no drugs, no aids, no terrorists, no hunger, no wars, no exploitation, ...
The only reason we dont have this, is because of people like you [atheists], who think that the Bible does more harm then good. If you think that the will of Jesus does harm, then how do you define good? What is good for you?
I don't see how that is relevant to the topic. I wouldn't say that MY morality is the right one, but that my God's morality is the right one. Why? Because He says so. You may not like the answer, but that is the only one I've got.
Have you ever seen some of the photos from the Hubble Telescope of the vast colorful photos of the milky way? I seroiusly believe that Heaven is a planet with living beings. More exists in these photos than one might anticipate. In fact, there are literally thousands of planets with life on them(these are the so called Aliens), except they are not touched by sin. Planet earth was God's crowning creation of all the other planets in the universe, and since the Devil wanted to get back and God in any way he could, he chose this planet to tempt in which we fell.
Finding new ways to solidify an argument is not necessarily a good thing. It only shows more so that this is what they want it to be. Evolutionists may believe that man evolved, but their theories are continually evolving as well. You may want to consider that a requirement to increase in knowledge if you want, but I do not if it is evident that there are way too many conflicting ideas. Evolutionist theories conflict with one another very often.
And I said yes it is possible to create a morality, but the real question is why should I follow your morality, why is your morality the right morality if there is no higher responsibility?
The same Christ that said the old law is gone?
You state that all these 'discoveries' are 'hoaxes'. And I say they arn't hoaxes. I could just as easily accuse TalkOrigins of being a hoax... I have a friend named Andrew who is part of the Ron Wyatt team. We both have a lot in common. He was at these sites himself, and he is convinced without a shadow of doubt that these ARE FOR REAL!... None of what you see in those sites are a hoax. I have connections with this team, and I know they are not liars!... You need to investigate that site throughly...reading the WHOLE story of Ron Wyatt's discovery of Noah's Ark from start to finish. Noah's Ark is not on Mount Ararat, it is in the MOUNTAINS (plural) of Ararat, and it is impaled on a rock just like the Ancient Civilization clues.
That Cretaceous impact [that wiped out the dinosaurs] was just another step in His plan to terraform the earth. The lush jungles and fatty deposits of the animals of that time became our oil, and tar for sailing ships, and the newer, cooler climate was perfect for sowing deciduous trees, grasses, conifers, and the creatures that would live among them.
The fact that various people who claim to be Christians work in this branch of science [evolutionary biology] doesn't alter that one iota. Take a good hard look at the people who profess to be Christian, and ask yourself how many of them even come close to the ideals set by Jesus. Is it any surprise that they have abandoned his teachings?
...we don't know what technology Noah might have used to give each of the animals the best environment as possible. As for freshwater fish, Noah didn't need to have an aquarium. You are assuming that all the water around the earth had to be either SALTY or FRESH! And what basis do you have for this assumption? None. I personally would not know for sure whether the flood was all salty, partly salty in only certain regions of the globe, or all fresh, but I see no reason to not believe that some areas were salty and others fresh.
That in the end NOTHING matters, so why should what we do right now matter.
This is where the lunacy comes in. 'It has to come from these Professors and from certain universities [and not CreationScience.com] to be valid'. I see your line of reasoning--which leads me to believe I made a dire mistake in mentioning anything from the start. I may have missinformation as to the exact standing of 'anthropologist, biologist, and geneticist'. You don't have enough sense yet to know that these men are extremely biased and have manipulated information to suit there macroevolutionary based theories of stupidity??? I've heard countless stories where these types of men love to hide evidence, and don't let the people know the truth. Many of them are liars. If this is the attitude you are going to take toward me, I see no use in providing you any documented sources, because you can be sure that you will do all in your power to discredit it, or find something wrong with the writer. Berkeley [University's website] can go jump in my back lake for all I care.
Troylus, if you believe that there is absolute 'proof' that the earth is much older than 6,000 years, then I would like to see it. Of all the research I have done comparing articles, I have come to the conclusion that the dating methods evolutionists use are unreliable. Carbon 14 dating only works only so many thousand years back, and then becomes unreliable. Anything that seems to date beyond 6,000 years is only a result of a world wide flood that caused many fossils to appear older than they really are. Catastrophism ages things pretty quickly--leaving you poor deluted evolutionists to misdate virtually everything. This leaves you the question as to whether such a flood existed. Well let me tell you, it did. I believe that todays oceans are the 'leftovers' of a worldwide flood. I also believe that most of our high jagged mountains, such as Mt. Everest were formed by the massive upheavel and underground water pressure that came from within the fountains of the earth.
Troylus, I've studied for myself, not influenced by anyone. I believe what I believe because it is the only way that adds up. There are literally thousands of Phd creation scientists who choose to believe in creation simply for the fact that evolution does not add up. Evolution has been proven wrong by creation scientists through much more material that you'd suppose--material you'd have to be willing to read--and not just articles, but books--many books.
Just because you call it pure nonsense doesn't make it so. Just because it's a theory about a conspiracy, doesn't make it wrong. People make choices, and then avoid the consequences, lie to cover it up, and catch other people up in their webs. It happens all the time. Why is it so uneasonable, given the circumstances, to believe the worst about the T[heory]o[f]E[volution]?
Ten commandments are not Christianity, I can tell you that... The fact is the ten commandments don't belong to any religion. I believe Muslims use the OT too right? Maybe it's muslim?
Well, that's the THEORY, anyway. Of course, no one's ever seen it happen, or found an intermediate fossil that proves the graduallist viewpoint. They've found stuff that supports punctuated equilibrium, but PE is just a convoluted way of saying God, so why not just cut to the chase?
Evolution occurs in sudden giant leaps, remember? That means that one day you have hyracotherium, and the next it births the next one in the chain. 'Punctuatedly equilibriumized' refers to the genes in mama and papa that will combine to become a whole new species inside mama. I know, I know, it sounds ridiculous. Imagine the difficulty I had swallowing it. I'm just repeating it back to you.
I acknowledge the fact that this indeed is a subject I need more enlightenment on.... Regardless of my missunderstanding of these facts, I still hold to my views whatever bones we are talking--whether we are 'considered offshoots' or not, are either normal human beings with severe bone ailment, or amalgamations (crossbreeds between man and ape). Some say it is genetically impossible. I agree, today it is impossible. But if we are speaking from a creationists point of view, men and animals during the post flood period were much healther and more genetically capable. But not today, since man had degenerated as a result of the many damages the flood brought upon the earth.
Sadly, you are probably more moral than most religious people, but this is not the point.... He [an atheist] still can easily turn aside and do immoral things simply for the fact that there is no restriction. On the other hand, however, when a Christian chooses right, he feels the necessity to do right because he knows there are eternal consequences at stake. So the barrier from holding believers in God to do wrong is much much greater than the barrier holding the non-believer from doing wrong. There are no eternal consequences... So if you really think about it, from an unbelievers perspective, there should be no such thing as 'right' or 'wrong', since 'right' and 'wrong' originated in heaven with the war against Lucifer, the archangel.
With no higher responsibility, sure you can. That is what I've been saying. If my ethics say it is ok to kill, rape, and pillage, then who is to say I'm wrong?
Plus you run into the problem Troylus touched on. Here you have a young Christain child growing up all their life thinking Santa is a real being, their parents said so; and then they finally figure out it is a sham, well the next logical step of course is applying that line of nikolodean thinking to the existence of God or the historical person of Jesus.
No, the point is that the ten commandments are not specifically Judeo-Christian, nor are they establishing a religion. Therefore it is not unconstitutional.
As long as they have roughly the same gene pools I think they will stay similar, unless one groups lives in somewhere like Alaska where it is freezing cold and only those with long furry hair survive, so only they are allowed to reproduce. I wouldn't call that evolution though, that is just the gene pool getting smaller, there was no mutating or anything involved.
[Replying to 'Public-funded abortion clinics do not discriminate']They discriminate based on age. Less then a certain age and you die. If your an unborn baby you die. Discrimination doesn't get much worse than that.
So the only problem with the rock thing is time - You'd have the same exact GOD and the same exact rock and the only diffrece be time. at time 1 GOD creates the rock and at time 2 He is able to lift the previously unliftable rock. I dunno, you wanted logic.
There is no tree, there is no cup, you don't bend the spoon-you bend your mind, and sure GOD can create a rock even GOD can't lift and GOD can also lift that same rock. Nothing is impossible. All things are possible with GOD.
Your theories maybe "predicted" this, but that in NO WAY some how makes it evidence, I could make up a theory about something and make predictions, if they are "true" does that give my theory more credibility? Probably not. The fact is that the big bang is poor scientific method.
If evolution were occuring today, we would see the things it predicts. All theories predict what one should see if they are correct. Well, we SHOULD be seeing things changing into different creatures. Somewhere, it ought to be happening. A fly should be turning into a beetle, or an earthworm into a lobster, or a monkey into another type of man. I'd settle for a bacteria turning into a rotifer at this point. We ought to be seeing intermediate animals all over the damn place.
Remember the 'Mars life-bearing rocks'? Those scientists found fossilised TRACES OF BIOCHEMICALS. This point is mine, all mine, and I'm not relinquishing it. No fossils = never existed.
Watch the [Ron Wyatt] videos Crosis, and maybe you'll see what I mean. I have a hard time believing that deep down inside you think these are hoaxes. Those links I gave you talk about a lot of convincing stuff, stuff that evolutionists have been at a loss for giving good explanations for.
Also, I find it rather amusing that you can actually call these various discoveries 'lies' (such as Ron Wyatt planting the chariot wheels), when I could just as easily accuse evolutionists of lying to the public by planting bones in various places to suit their preconceived ideas and theories of how they 'evolved'. What if they are the ones lying instead?
It [talking with God] 'feels' just like you are talking to anyone else. Sometimes you don't 'feel' anything at all, you feel very alone. Sometimes you feel very close to God.
I'm not sure because I don't think I could ever completely lose my faith that there is a higher purpose in this world. It's kind of hard to think about something that you know is impossible.
Mormonism isn't a 'flavor' of Christianity. It's an occult.
No proof of evolution = proof of God? What do you think?
Well I feel sorry for you then, because if you believe your existance is pointless, then that is up to you. As for me, I treasure existence and life. If that is how you feel, then so be it. I'm not in charge of changing your mind either. If I were you, I would give better credit to the idea that heaven is a glorious, celestial place with millions of planets then some little piddily fluffy cloud with angels and harps. Were'd you imagine this from? Drawings Children's story books?
You state that salt water and fresh water mix in a cup instantly... but has this been tested on a grand global scale? I'm not saying that the flood consisted of both fresh water and salty water simultaneously for sure. But even if the flood did have all fresh water, that does not mean these various sea creatures were not able to swim them.
Do you honestly feel that paleobiologists and their ilk, whose degrees will only earn them a living while the T[heory]o[f]E[volution] is still considered a valid scientific pursuit, and will end up flipping burgers if it is ever proven wrong, would ever publish evidence that damages their livelihood?
This is blatenly false. The fossil record is as complete today as it's goning to get... No 'new' fossil discoveries are going to fill in the plain gaps that exist.
How about the Ice Age? Geologists found all of these fossils and rock formations, and heard about the T[heory]o[f]E[volution], and decided that since it was true, there must have been an Ice Age.
The male's size doesn't matter, he's not giving birth to a whole new larger species, the female is. Only his genes matter.
[Replying to 'Your attacks on Evolutionary Theory stem from a gross misunderstanding of many biological processes']This is a laughable statement. Let me re-phrase it for you so that it says the exact same thing, but in an accurate way: Your valid concerns with the ToE have been dealt with by changing the ToE. While your arguments were totally valid a few days ago, we are now talking about something completely different. This is how we've stayed in business for two hundred years (almost). Now go away, or we shall taunt you a second time!