I very much agree with this!

to be christian means other religions are wrong

That's cool. You're awesome.

Why Jesus? We have to look at the historical facts. Jesus preformed miracles. Jesus raised people from the dead. Jesus feed thousands with just a few fish and loafs of bread. All in the name of God. Then Jesus died and was resurrected by God. All fulfilling historical prophecies. Facts that prove Christianity is the true religion.

When we look at other religions we have to ask, what are the miracles of their prophets?

"When we look at other religions we have to ask, what are the miracles of their prophets?"

Well ... Mohammed allegedly split the moon, provided food and water supernaturally, went to heaven, comforted a crying palm tree, moved two trees at his command, blinded his enemies on the battlefield with grains of sand, etc, etc, etc. Why Jesus instead of Mohammed? I'm sorry to question you on this, but you asked rhetorically for the miracles of other prophets as if other religions don't also have miracles attributed to their prophets, and they do.

You are correct, Mohammed allegedly did these things but does not have any personal miracles in accordance with the Arabic Quran. The splitting of the moon is from 54:1 "The Hour (Judgement Day) has come close and the moon was split". All alleged miracles are from Muslim tradition.
http://www.quran-islam.org/home_%28P1%29.html

So I must disagree that your assessment with your example.

Fair enough. If having all the miracles in one book makes it more valid to you, have at it.

You have a point. There are 4 Islam holy books mentioned in the Qur'an. The Torah (revealed to Moses), the Zabur (revealed to David), the Injil (Gospel) (revealed to Jesus), and the Qur'an itself. But none of these books show any miracles performed by Mohammad.

http://www.whyislam.org/submission/.....-divine-books/

Because Muhammad was the final prophet of Islam, any other book written after Muhammad would not be considered holy. "The Hadith, second only to the Qur'an in importance and authority, are collections of Islamic traditions and laws (Sunna). This includes traditional sayings of Muhammed and later Islamic sages. By the ninth century over 600,000 Hadith had been recorded; these were later edited down to about 25,000." Are these the writings you are referring to for the miracles?

http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/hadith/index.htm

If there are miracles performed by Mohammad, can you provide a reference? The above links might help.

"You have a point. There are 4 Islam holy books mentioned in the Qur'an. The Torah (revealed to Moses), the Zabur (revealed to David), the Injil (Gospel) (revealed to Jesus), and the Qur'an itself. But none of these books show any miracles performed by Mohammad."

Wuh? Oh, no. You explained your position and I conceded. You do not consider the alleged miracles of Mohammed as the same; they are less credible to you. That makes more sense than what I thought you were asking, which was if other religions had miracles attributed to their prophets.

I can provide references to documents that claim Mohammed did miracles. There are webpages that already have them listed and sourced, so I don't have to dig through dry religious documents. But why? They're mostly not in the Quran I assume (except the moon splitting) which matters to you, and I don't believe them. All that really matters is we have established you believe in one prophet's miracles and the rationale behind your decision. Whether I agree or your assessment of other religions is correct or incorrect isn't really relevant. I was just curious what your meaning was on other religious prophets and miracles.

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. I appreciate it.

I was raised christian, and though I've had my ups and downs over the years I have studied culture, history and religions across the world. I came to christ because of his teachings of charity, faith, hope, and love. I might not be conventional as my grandmother or father but I place my faith in a higher power beyond the skeen of mortal existence and the dull senses with which we can preceve or understand it.

I firmly believe in Jesus as my leader and light, yet when people seem to deny him ,or any religion for that matter, I get all knotted up inside my heart and mind. I wish people would just let bygones be bygones.

On prayer, I believe it is a very important privilege to speak with God, considering the past and old testament ways of being able to speak with Him. I may not pray every day, but i always reach out when i need to.

Because I am imperfect. Because I fail, every day. Because I need to be loved for who I am, despite these things. That is why.

Let´s pretend Jesus was just a "normal" guy without the power and all. Most of the things he preach and how he handled other peoples are THE way for a tolerant and peaceful society. Even most people today aren´t like that. And that stuff from a man who lived in a time where violence and war where something normal, in a area where even today blood and thunder rules.

Jesus is the best possible choice we have rather than any other..
And Christianity is the best belief because it has no flaws .. all it requires you to do is confess and believe..
It's Jesus or nothing

*whistles as best a canid can*

I'll give this a shot:

Jesus is the Incarnate Word, and it is through and for the Word that all of creation exists and in whom the Trinity finds its unity. He is the perfect expression of the Father made manifest within the universe that is itself the outpouring of all the creative utterance of God. By infusing the perfect Godhead with the imperfect material man, Jesus bound the Divine to the material and brought His creative work to consummate completion. He had to be man, for only man can freely choose, and without choice, the creation would be simply an expression, but when man freely chooses God, creation becomes a relationship. Jesus, being the perfect image of the all-giving Father, gives back to the Father in total charity, and being one with creation, through him all of creation is given back to the Father in totality. He is the perfect image of the Father, evidenced by the fact that he is able to give himself in full, and thus, being fused as he is with creation, answers the groaning of creation to be united with the Father from which it sprang. Only with Jesus in it is creation endowed with divine meaning. Only through Jesus can creation achieve its ultimate purpose.

Why Jesus? Without Jesus there is no meaning or purpose to creation.

• Because of Jesus' divinity and humanity.
"In the beginning was the Word (Jesus), and the Word (Jesus) was with God, and the Word (Jesus) was God. He (Jesus) was with God in the beginning. Through him (Jesus) all things were made; without him (Jesus) nothing was made that has been made." John 1:1-3
He was God. When the beginning began, He already was. Nothing else existed before Him.

"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." John 1:14
He was 100% God and 100% man, sinless; bridging the gap between Man and God.

• Because Jesus is the only one qualified to be my Savior.
No other religion has a sinless savior. They have gurus, prophets, and enlightened teachers but none of them are sinless. Buddha, Bahá'u'lláh, even Muhammad wasn't sinless. I am not going to ask for help from someone who is in the same predicament as I am.

• Because of the claims Jesus made.
No other religious leader in history has ever been so bold as to say:
"I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me."
"I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."
"I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty."
"Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid."
Only God have the audacity to speak such words.

• Jesus is the only way that guarantees a 100% safe passage back to the Father.
There are basically 2 kinds of religion: 1) One that says that you can be saved by your good works/be a good person 2) One that tells you that you need a savior. My good works cannot make up for the sins that I have committed. I need a savior that could stand in my stead before the Father and Jesus is the only one out there who fulfills all of the Father's requirement.

There is an unbridgeable gap between Jesus and other religions. He is the only one capable and qualified to save me from my sins. There is simply none other like Him and to someone like that, I am willing to bet my eternity.

For unbelieving skeptics and Christians who don't quite know how to answer this question, I give you these links:
http://www.moodymedia.org/sermons/g.....-jesus-part-1/
http://www.moodymedia.org/sermons/g.....-jesus-part-2/

Well-said. I look forward to listening to those sermons. I'm not as familiar with Erwin Lutzer (only by name), but I love D. L. Moody.

Why Jesus?

Its a question that many would as someone, but for me, it is because of who he is. Not only have I rooted my full belief in him because he is the son of God, but also the fact no one would have done what he did. Literally moving yourself from being in heaven and having the body of one of your creations is just one thing, but literally living the life of a human, while still being the true son of God, and never once sinned because he was God. THEN literally being betrayed by everyone you love, and then having to take on all the evil of the world, so bad to the point that even God the Father could not even look at Jesus just for those few seconds because of how much sin was one him, THEN go down and take away the keys of life and death from the Devil, and resurrecting on the third day. Jesus is literally thee coolest and greatest, heck God in general is the best. Humbling yourself down to a human form and dying for you own creation is one of the most hardcore and loving things that God has ever done. Why Jesus? Because he did the one thing no one would ever do, and in the end, he is God. Plus, the best thing about believing in Jesus, its a relationship between you and God. Its not just a bow down and worship some being, no its a relationship between you and God. I could spend all day explaning this, but if I had to summarize it, my answer is because he is the only way, and its as simple as that. No rituals, no list of things to do, just a simple "Believe In Me, and the rest will follow."

Because Jesus Himself said 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.' John 14:6

As a kid it was simply "this is what my parents say is true." As I grew older I understood that simply was not enough (particularly as I found myself disagreeing with other things my parents said and realized I had to figure out what I believed).

So I started looking at what other explanations were out there. I had my roots in Christianity and knew its tenants, its "story" so to speak, so I had to look into what others were saying about the world, the universe, and how it all came to be. You could say I took the "scientific approach" to it. Or perhaps, the Vulcan approach. Logic.

The "scientific" explanation is the Big Bang, followed by millions of years of evolution resulting in the world we know today. But the deeper I dug the less science I found to support this "scientific" explanation. It could not explain the origin of the universe, only assert that there must not have been a beginning, or else all the "something" of the universe simply came out of "nothing" and, despite there being nothing to stimulate, influence, or otherwise affect the "nothing," the "nothing" spontaneously became "everything." The Big Bang was not scientifically grounded and logically flawed. With such a shaky foundation, the theory that evolution then took over became even less credible. I will grant certain principles do make logical sense. That the members of a species how are best equipped to handle their environment will survive and reproduce, also known as micro-evolution, makes sense. We, as compassionate human beings, outright defy this "law" of "survival of the fittest," and such compassionate behavior has been seen even in "lesser" animals. But the idea that a paramecium became a fish that became a lizard that became a bird that then became a bat or some other such craziness...well there is no foundation upon which this theory of macro-evolution could be based. Macro-evolution fails the two main requisites of science: that which can be observed, and that which can be tested. Conveniently, macro-evolution "takes millions of years for any noticeable change to occur." A handy cop-out for not being able to actually produce any proof or even evidence that one species became an entirely different species over the course of time. So for an explanation of the universe, "science" was out.

So I started looking at other religions and doctrines. Some said there was no "supreme being" of any kind. But logically, that did not make sense. Everything we know had to come from somewhere. Beyond that, the thought was rather depressing. This life we have would be it. And ultimately, it would be meaningless and without purpose. There would be nothing to strive for, nothing to look forward to, neither consequence nor reward for what we do with our time here. Total anarchy, and no true morality because there is no one above anyone else to say "this is right, and this is wrong." It would be entirely subjective. In order for there to be morality someone must set the standard. This concept of "conscience" suggests that inside each of us there is something, some voice, some influence that tells us "this isn't right." If we are all just elevated pond scum or the product of random flatulence of the universe there would be no such thing as "right" or "wrong." Atheism, therefore, could not be the answer.

So there had to be some "supreme being" out there. Some religions suggested that WE are the supreme beings, that we are "god" (and yet, somehow, there is no god simultaneously). Well, if we are the "god" of this universe, that once again falls into the subjective anarchy of atheism. There must be a deity separate from humanity. At that point it became, I suppose, a matter of preference. But still, logic persisted. Some said there were many gods, others said there was but one. Those that asserted polytheism suggested that the gods were not infallible, were not even invulnerable, and really they all boiled down to superstition. Rain falls, "It's the gods!" Thunder strikes, "it's the gods!" A flood happens, "it's the gods!" You sneeze on the fifth day of the fifth month at the fifth hour, "it's the gods!" Polytheism simply would not do. It couldn't hold up to scrutiny.

So there had to be a supreme being, and there had to only be one. This seemed to leave me with the Catholic, the Jewish, the Muslim, and the Christian world views. Catholicism claimed to be based upon the Bible, and yet their principles and practices are not Biblical. The Bible does not say "confess your sins to an appointed elder of the clergy and perform whatever asinine task he assigns you," it says "Confess your sins to God and He will forgive you." The Bible does not say "you must recite from this list of prayers and your must do so in the exact wording in which they are written," instead the Bible shows that prayer is, quite simply, TALKING to God. A conversation. Fellowship. Not religion but a RELATIONSHIP with the Father. This was not only logically in standing with the Bible, but on a deeper, more emotional level it was far more fulfilling and satisfying.

The Jews, as was mentioned in this journal, rejected Jesus, and seem very much confined to the Old Testament ways. Tradition is all well and good, and it is important to know where we came from and what we've been through. But it is history. Where the Old Testament would have you cry "Unclean! Unclean!" Jesus said "be cleansed, and be healed." The Old Testament, as I understand it, was our fault. God had offered to walk with us, to stay at our side, to guide us in our daily lives. We (mankind), in our arrogance and ignorance, basically said "we don't need you here all the time, God. Just give us the rules we need to follow and a king to rule over us, and we'll be just fine on our own." Really, if we want to know how the world would be according to God's plan we need look no further than Eden. That was the world God created for us. We were the idiots who could not follow ONE simple rule: don't eat from one specific tree out of thousands. The Jews seem to fall into the same trap as the Pharisees. It's all about the "law" and not about the intent, nor the law-giver.

Then, there's Islam, where "god" is this untouchable, unreachable, unknowable, uncaring, distant entity that you are not allowed to speak to, only to exalt and praise. You're not supposed to bring your needs to him, you're not supposed to ask him for anything, and really you're not even supposed to pray to him outside of the designated call to prayer. And failure to attend this call to prayer is grounds for execution. IN fact, nearly EVERYTHING is grounds for execution. Christmas, questioning Allah, questioning Islam, any singing that is not singing praises to Allah, dancing of any kind, laughing or even simply smiling within a set perimeter of "holy ground," the making and/or viewing of films and video recording (quite hypocritical considering how many "devout Muslims" send video threats to the "Great Satan" and the "Infidels"). All of these things (and many, many, many more) are considered "corruption" and thus a crime against Islam punishable by death. And yet some Muslims will try to argue that Islam is a religion of "peace," citing a verse in which it is proclaimed it is entirely unacceptable to take life...except in the case of corruption, or in matters of revenge ("Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord" anyone?), in which cases it is not only acceptable, but actually required to kill. In truth, there is nothing in all of Islam that makes any sense nor sits well with me in any way.

So that brought me right back to where I started: Christianity. And it all makes sense. There is an answer for everything, even if that answer is not always the most comforting. Like "why do bad things happen to good people?" Well, for starters, there are no "good people." Jesus Himself said "call no man good, for none are good but the Father." So once we have stripped ourselves of that delusion that any of us is "good" the question is already moot, but the answer does not stop there. Bad things happen because humanity has free will, and with it the ability to choose to do what is wrong. One might then ask "why doesn't God make it so people can't do anything wrong?" He could,sure, but that would rob us all of free will. God did not create us to be mindless drones capable only of doing as He wishes us to. He wants us to CHOOSE Him, to CHOOSE to do what is right. Logically, think about it for a moment: would you rather have a few good friends who stand by your side because they WANT to be by your side, or dozens of people who are only there because they are forced against their will and have no true allegiance or desire to be anywhere near you?

Perfectly explained <3

I couldn't put it better. Well done.

Very well-said, friend. Thanks for sharing. :)

I appreciate the spirit of this post and I am in agreement with a lot of what you say. However, some of what you say here represents a grossly oversimplified and unsophisticated view of some of the ideas you address. You're analysis of Big Bang cosmology and evolution is completely wrong and misinformed. There is no reason for a Christian to reject Big Bang cosmology because it implies that space and time had a beginning. Many Christians see the findings of modern cosmology as confirmatory of biblical teaching and that it has clear theological implications. Every discipline of science relating to the age of the Earth and universe--cosmology, astrophysics, astronomy, geology, biology--all point to a physical universe that is billions of years old. I don't see why modern science is antithetical to Christian belief. I'm not going to touch evolution here but most people who reject evolution don't even understand how it works or know about the multiple lines of evidence that supports it.

Your analysis of Islam is also overly simplistic. Islam is the second largest religion in the world and a complicated monotheistic faith that has multiple schools of thought, traditions, and divisions based on theology just as Christianity does. Many Muslims would disagree with your characterization of Islam. I think you could have pointed out better theological differences between Islam and Christianity to focus on rather than focusing strictly on the Wahabi/fundamentalist understanding of Islam.

Saying that Catholics are not Christian because their theology may be wrong on some points is unfair. Christian salvation is not based on perfect or accurate theology but belief, acceptance, and identification with Christ and his redeeming sacrifice. Sincere Catholics do that.

As both a Christian and someone educated in philosophy, I think you're too dismissive of the philosophical problems that arise from Christian teaching. Ultimately I agree with you but I think there are real difficulties, including those involving salvation and free will, that require serious consideration, careful thought, and are not easily resolved.

Theologians, historians, Genealogists, and other Biblical scholars have used the timelines, ages, and passages within the Bible to approximate the age of the Earth to be roughly around 5-6,000 years old. Not millions, certainly not billions. The very idea that the Earth has been around for billions of years is not Biblical.

And unless you want to say that the "Big Bang" is just the term the atheists use to describe God saying "Let there be ____," I'm sorry, but throw that crap out. Right now. As a Christian, as a believer in God and in the Bible as HIS Word, the universe began when God said "Let there be___" and there was. Let there be light. Let there be land and see. Let there be life. And there was. Until God said "let there be," our universe, our very concepts of space and time DID NOT EXIST.

And let's talk "evidence," shall we? What is science? Break it down to the very core of what it is, and science is OBSERVATION and TESTING, that which can be seen, touched, tasted, smelled, heard, or otherwise experienced FIRSTHAND. Macro-evolution is a cop-out. "Oh we can't actually see it happen because it takes billions of years to actually be noticeable and after that amount of time everything has completely degraded. But trust us, we're scientists." Ask any "scientist" to give a solid, PROVEN example of one KIND of creature becoming a DIFFERENT kind of creature, and you'll get a blank stare. Sure they can give examples of "well, this finch with a straight beak became this finch with a curved beak," but that is not a changing in KIND. That is adaptation, not evolution.

And again, don't get me wrong, this idea of "natural selection" IS logical. Those that are able to adapt, survive, and reproduce will represent the species through future generations, and those unable to adapt, survive, and reproduce will, quite obviously, be filtered OUT of the gene pool. But a newt will never become a falcon. A trout will never become a cat. You speak of "multiple lines of evidence" and yet not a single one exists.

But let's poke another hole in the so-called "evidence." A paleontologist uncovers ONE single, solitary, and I must stress INCOMPLETE grouping of bones. Conclusion? "Holy heck we've got a new, undiscovered species!" Give it another thousand years and I would love to be around to see the kind of reactions future "scientists" get when they unearth the bodies of Andre the Giant and Verne Troyer. What the heck are they going to make of THAT. Maybe you saw the recent "trending" headline about some kid finding a dino skeleton and it being labeled as "the T. Rex's ugly cousin." One set of bones. Not multiple, complete skeletons indicative of an entire species. One. Set. Of. Bones. ONE. A freak, a miscarriage, a defect, a mutate, but no, all of those possibilities are ignored because "new species" is so much more sensational. If you really step back and look at "scientific evidence" objectively, or better yet, through the lens of ACTUAL SCIENCE, you begin to see it's all a load of absolute bull.

And now, to the religion. "Multiple schools of thought." You know what that's called? Heresy. What did Jesus say? Do you remember? "I am THE way, THE truth, and THE light. NO ONE comes to the Father but through ME." Not "Well, I'm one path you could choose." Not "I am A way." THE. Only one. Not multiple. Likewise in Islam there is only ONE way that can be the "true way" because all other ways are contradictory to each other. To "over-simplify" it for you, 2+2 can only equal 4. If 2+2 equals 1, 5, 7, 26, 38, and 7.9 million, then the equation becomes arbitrary and worthless. It is no longer TRUTH, it is OPINION. There can only be one truth. There can only be one way. Truth is not subjective. Truth is not arbitrary. Truth does not play favorites. It is simply the truth. It is what it is, and anything that is not, cannot be truth.

You say many Muslims might disagree with my portrayal of them (which is based upon their own scriptures and commandments). Many so-called "Christians" think homosexuality is perfectly fine despite the Bible being very adamant that it is NOT (Sodom and Gomorrah, anyone?), or they might say "well it's ok to take what isn't yours so long as you're doing it for a noble cause or taking it from someone who is unjust." Well God said "Thou Shalt Not Steal, PERIOD." People claiming to be Muslim might say "it is a religion of peace" but if they spent half as much time reading the Quran as they spent formulating that statement they'd know otherwise.

Christian salvation is based upon accepting the salvation that Jesus bought for us with His own blood, and in doing so taking upon Himself the punishments for our sins as laid out in the Old Testament. Catholics venerate Mary, who was merely a vessel. They pray to the "saints" for protection, traveling mercy, finding lost items, pets, seriously take a second and think about it objectively and Catholicism is polytheistic. They treat Mary and the saints as gods. Christianity is a relationship with the Creator, Catholicism is religion. Ceremony and ritual, practices and performance. I've been in Catholic churches and I cannot fully express in words how DEAD it felt in there. No spirit, not even spirituality. Do this, say this, repeat this, answer this, and do it in the correct order and after the proper cue and you'll be saved. Hogwash. I'm sorry, I don't mean to offend anyone, but that is hogwash.

As for philosophy: does it coincide with what God says? If not, then throw it out. God must be the measuring stick, the master mold, the standard by which all must be compared and if it does not fit we must dismiss it. Philosophy has it's place, sure, but there is philosophy, and then there is truth. If one does not befit the other, it can only be called a lie. Mahatma Gandhi was the one who said "hate the sin, but love the sinner." A hindu, not a Christian. A philosophy, not an actual scripture. But if you read the scriptures, if you study the Bible, you see that he was not wrong. God hates sin. That has been made abundantly clear. And yet the Bible tells us that no greater love was demonstrated than when God sent Jesus to die for us WHILE WE WERE STILL IN SIN. His love for US (the sinner) is greater than His hate for sin (an act, a shortcoming, something we DO, not what we ARE). But other philosophies, mantras, catchphrases, and "personal proverbs" do NOT meld with God's Word, and thus we cannot accept them. To do so dilutes and pollutes our walk with God. "Beware of false prophets."

I was writing a longer response to this that addressed your points more directly but then I accidentally lost it and I do not have the will to try and rewrite it. I doubt anything I said would have changed your mind which is, at least in this point in time, very closed to any alternative way of thinking. You are an intelligent person but unfortunately irresponsibly ignorant about most of the subjects you comment on, including biblical exegesis. The fact that you interpret the Genesis account as taking place over literal 24-hour periods shows that you don't even respect the literary or linguistic context of the text itself.

Three general points I will make:

1) You fabricate conflicts between Christianity and "secular" disciplines of knowledge that don't exist. All truth is God's truth and the truth we discover through science and other disciplines is more harmonious, unifying, and God-affirming than you want to concede.

2) I believe one of the characteristics of God, the Supreme, maximally great being, is perfect rationality. I reject beliefs that are clearly irrational not because I worship reason above God but because God is reason. You cannot elevate reason above God anymore than you elevate love above God because both are grounded in and essential to his nature. But much of what you say here implies that reason should be discarded in favor of blind faith. Faith is suppose to fill in the gaps that reason can't. If the Bible conflicts with rational evidence, particularly as you interpret it, you say throw out the rational evidence. Such a view defines reason as the enemy of God which seems like nonsense to me. Fortunately, I don't believe that Bible warrants the views you defend such as that Catholics are necessarily counterfeit Christians, that the Earth and the universe are less than 10,000 years old, or that any Christians who don't think the way that you do about everything are heretics.

3) I never said, nor implied that truth was relative or subjective. Nor am I necessarily saying that all your criticisms are misplaced. What I was calling for was epistemic humility and academic responsibility. You clearly are not an expert or even well-educated in science, philosophy, Qur'an exegesis, Islamic theology, or Catholic theology but you make yourself out to be and, as such, construct strawmen caricatures based upon a few general bits of knowledge you happen to have. Humility and intellectual integrity are virtues that Christians should strive to uphold.

You're right, I don't "respect the literary or linguistic context" by means of personal misinterpretation. When the Bible says "God did THIS one the first day," guess what I interpret that to mean? That God did that on the first DAY. 24 hours. And do you know why I accept this as truth? Because this is GOD we're talking about. A being capable of literally SPEAKING the universe into existence and you doubt that He could do so, bit by bit, over the course of six days? We, as we are today, with all our technological advancements, knowledge, and development, could have been created YESTERDAY if that's how God wanted it to be. So no, I am not "open minded" to the kind of SMALL minded thinking that tries to put God in a box that WE can understand.

1) God created the universe vs the universe just 'happened." God created man vs man came from apes that came from lesser monkeys that came from lesser mammals that came from lizards that came from amphibians that came from fish that came from smaller fish that came from protozoans that came from a random collection of non-sentient elements that came from...NOTHING. I do not "fabricate" conflicts, friend. I point out the clear and unquestionable contradictions between secular thinking and Biblical teachings and the reason for this contradiction is that those who come up with these theories and concepts do so because they want to DENY THE VERY EXISTENCE OF GOD. Whether it is the arrogance of "without a god, we are the single most powerful and intelligent beings in the universe" or simply the idea that "if there is no god we are accountable only to ourselves," the point remains the same: there are people who push their ideas and will go to great lengths and do incredible mental gymnastics to capture the tiniest shred of "evidence" that allows them, in their own minds, to deny God and thus reduce the universe to subjective self-interpretation and self-exaltation. No, not all "truth" is God's truth because the secular world wants to create its own, subjective "truth" that denies God or even any reason for there to BE a god of any kind. I don't know if you caught the "documentary" of Stephan Hawking's "Do we need God" or not, but his basic premise was "if there is matter, there can be antimatter, and if there is space, there can be negative space, and even though it defies all known, accepted, and scientifically proven concepts of action-reaction and cause-effect all of the universe must have happened because for absolutely no reason and with absolutely no stimulus or influence absolutely nothing suddenly became absolutely everything through the creation of absolute anti/negative-everything." And he called that "truth." He then proceeded to say anyone who questioned it or relied on "the god theory" after hearing HIS "truth" was a blind fool clinging desperately to superstition and ignorance. Which leads me to...

2) I am not saying "throw out rational evidence," I am saying stop calling the irrational and unfounded "proof." I am saying that far to much of the so-called "science" of today has all the validity of tabloid scandal sheets. When the discovery of ONE, single, solitary partial skeleton is enough for "scientists" to claim there is an entirely new SPECIES (i.e. hundreds, thousands, millions, or even BILLIONS of individual creatures falling into one classification), any RATIONAL and REASONABLE individual would say "you've gone completely out of your minds." If "scientists" dug up the skeletal remains of a human being who had a birth defect that caused his limbs to never fully develop, only going so far as to leave tiny, stubby protrusions at the shoulders and hips, they would say "this is an example of a pre-human evolution that had not yet developed limbs for walking or grasping, was most likely aquatic, and traveled through the water by undulating its body." Again, any RATIONAL and REASONABLE mind has to take what "science" says with a grain of salt, understand the CONTEXT and SOURCE behind these claims, and think CRITICALLY and follow the thought all the way through to its logical conclusion. In doing so, one often finds there are far too many holes and contradictions in the "scientific" explanations for them to truly be classified as science. Water boils and evaporates at 100 degrees celsius. This is science. It can be observed, tested, reproduced, and no matter where you are in the world, or indeed the universe, water will still boil and evaporate at that same temperature. This is science. "I found ONE set of bones and therefore thousands of years of what has been tested and observed is ALL A LIE" is not science.

3) What you have is a failure to understand me, my mind, or how any of it works. It is why in school other students would come to me after class. I could take the hour long lecture, the chapters upon chapters of textbook information, the weeks of homework and study guides, and reduce it to simple, easy to understand, "caricatures" as you call them. I would take something supposedly so complex and boil it down to its basic tenets. Just as someone could give you chapter and verse everything the Bible says about God, or they could simply say "God is love," and both would be exactly right. Sometimes things are not nearly as complicated as you would like to believe them to be. Beyond the simple writings, I also draw upon personal experiences, and the recounting and testimony of others. Real people, dealing with real world examples.

"Water boils and evaporates at 100 degrees celsius. This is science. It can be observed, tested, reproduced, and no matter where you are in the world, or indeed the universe, water will still boil and evaporate at that same temperature."

Water's boiling point changes depending on air pressure. Your boiling point will only work at sea level on Earth.


"I do not "fabricate" conflicts, friend. I point out the clear and unquestionable contradictions between secular thinking and Biblical teachings and the reason for this contradiction is that those who come up with these theories and concepts do so because they want to DENY THE VERY EXISTENCE OF GOD."

That's a fabricated conflict.


"I am not saying 'throw out rational evidence,' I am saying stop calling the irrational and unfounded 'proof.'"

No, you said throw it out if it conflicted with what God says.


"I am saying that far to much of the so-called "science" of today has all the validity of tabloid scandal sheets."

Seeing as science has tangibly improved our lives and that you are not an expert in the fields you are talking about, I'd say your criticism has less validity than tabloid scandal sheets.


"What you have is a failure to understand me, my mind, or how any of it works. It is why in school other students would come to me after class."

Yet you are unaware that air pressure affects the boiling point of water. You have done your classmates a grave disservice.

I was referring to a standard. I apologize that the implication went over your head.

And again, it is not "fabricated." Open a newspaper sometime. Read a "scientific" journal. Watch the so-called "documentaries" on History and Discovery channels. Do you honestly expect the liberal and often times atheistic media to promote anything that even remotely suggests God had anything to do with creating the universe? Do you honestly believe self-important "scientists" like Bill Nye and Stephan Hawking would ever admit that something beyond their scope might actually be divine? I pity your naivety.

And yea, funny thing, I have this tendency to believe the Creator of the whole frickin' UNIVERSE over some insignificant speck living in it. I'm weird like that.

How has the theory of evolution "tangibly improved out lives?" How has the "Big Bang?" How has the "super particle origin of the universe" theory improved our lives? How has indoctrinating young minds into believing humanity is just slightly elevated pond scum and therefore that life is insignificant "tangibly improved our lives?" Hitler killed MILLIONS over the idea that certain members of humanity are "more evolved" and therefore "superior" to others. Yea. HUGE improvements to our lives there. Way to go "science." I believe what you mean to say is that certain elements of technology, a sub-branch of science, have brought improvements. And their own fair share of detriments. How many people die or are horribly injured because they couldn't put their smart phone, tablet, etc. down for five minutes so they can actually, oh I don't know, KEEP THEIR EYES ON THE ROAD!? How many people sit literally inches away from others and yet don't talk, don't smile, don't make eye contact, don't even acknowledge their existence because the whole of their being is transfixed on a 4" screen in their hand? Don't get me wrong, I love technology, I love the potential that it has and I love the conveniences it can bring us. But for far too many it has become an idol. But the science you are speaking of is not the same science that is saying "we don't need a god therefore there is no god and nothing in the universe had to be created by a god of any kind." An iPhone does not explain the origin of the universe, nor does it even attempt to.

Again, they understood the concepts and how it related to the subject matter, they just needed someone to summarize the BASIC principles behind it. Yes, there are always factors. I'm surprised you didn't go off on how impurities in the water (as well as the air around it) can affect freezing and boiling points, or that this standard applies to water but other liquids have different boiling points significantly higher (and lower) than water, etc., etc.. But again, obviously that all went way over your head.

"I was referring to a standard. I apologize that the implication went over your head."

Maybe you were, but you also thought water's boiling point was universal. I can even quote it: "This is science. It can be observed, tested, reproduced, and no matter where you are in the world, or indeed the universe, water will still boil and evaporate at that same temperature." It's not true. Water's boiling point changes. You don't even have the correct facts about the science you trust. How do you know you actually understand the science you don't?


"Do you honestly expect the liberal and often times atheistic media to promote anything that even remotely suggests God had anything to do with creating the universe?"

Yeah, if it's popular they'll run it. And is Fox News part of this "liberal media" atheistic conspiracy, or are they the persecuted underdog as well?


"Do you honestly believe self-important "scientists" like Bill Nye and Stephan Hawking would ever admit that something beyond their scope might actually be divine?"

Bill Nye isn't a scientist. And yes. They would change their minds if the evidence was compelling. Bill Nye said as much during his debate with Ken Ham.


"How has the theory of evolution "tangibly improved out lives?"

Vaccine and medical treatments for rapidly evolving diseases like H1N1 or HIV are possible because of our scientific understanding of evolution. Genetics and evolution go hand-in-hand, and work in genetics will help us prevent cancer, extend human life, and possibly produce meat via cloning, which would greatly reduce our impact on the planet, if it was economically viable. Without an understanding of evolution, we'd be sicker and unable to do these things.


"How has indoctrinating young minds into believing humanity is just slightly elevated pond scum and therefore that life is insignificant "tangibly improved our lives?"

Who says life is insignificant? Indoctrination? That's your opinion on what science says and does, and it's not true.


"Hitler killed MILLIONS over the idea that certain members of humanity are "more evolved" and therefore "superior" to others."

Hitler wasn't a scientist, nor were his actions informed by science.


"How many people die or are horribly injured because they couldn't put their smart phone, tablet, etc. down for five minutes so they can actually, oh I don't know, KEEP THEIR EYES ON THE ROAD!?"

They chose to interact with their phone while driving, so the consequences are on them, not their tech.


"But the science you are speaking of is not the same science that is saying "we don't need a god therefore there is no god and nothing in the universe had to be created by a god of any kind."

No science says that. Please point to a scientific paper that explicitly says that. A scientist may believe that, but that's their belief, not a scientific theory.


"An iPhone does not explain the origin of the universe, nor does it even attempt to."

That's also not true. Siri allows you to give your phone voice commands or ask questions, so it probably does have a programmed answer for the origin of the universe.


"I'm surprised you didn't go off on how impurities in the water (as well as the air around it) can affect freezing and boiling points, or that this standard applies to water but other liquids have different boiling points significantly higher (and lower) than water, etc., etc."

Because the claim you made was "no matter where you are in the world, or indeed the universe, water will still boil and evaporate at that same temperature." Not true of the universe, and not even true everywhere on Earth. Why split hairs or bring in other irrelevancies? Your universal boiling point claim on water was incorrect.

"Yeah, if it's popular they'll run it"

In case you haven't noticed, God is not exactly "popular." Do you know what is "popular" these days? Sensationalizing police "brutality" while ignoring the fact that these men and women put their lives on the line every day. Promoting homosexuality as "normal, natural, completely equal to heterosexuality" while demoralizing or outright demonizing heterosexuals and if those heterosexuals happen to be (surprise surprise) Christian, the word immediately translates to "hateful, close-minded, bigoted bastards who despise love and teach only hate and persecution and would sooner throw their own child out on the streets than hear that he's gay." So no, my friend, the media at large will NOT bring God into the mix as anything but a straw-man to "explain" why some backwards lunatic with NO understanding of who and what God really is did what he did. And really, do you even have to ask about Fox news? You remember my tabloid analogy? Most people these days would believe any of them over Fox News. In fact, "Fox News" has become a euphemism for saying someone's "Facts" are ignorant, outdated, or just flat out wrong.

"They would change their minds if the evidence was compelling. Bill Nye said as much..."

And you actually believed that bit of PR nonsense? The evidence IS compelling, but it does not mesh with THEIR idea that God does not enter the equation despite their "equation" being full of holes and completely unable to sustain itself and having absolutely no REAL scientific foundation to stand upon. So what would these nudnicks consider "compelling evidence?" God coming down from Heaven in a ball of fire and lighting, picking them up off the ground and bellowing "I AM GOD," smiting them on the spot, resurrecting them, and then dropping them halfway around the globe in an instant? Or would He simply have to demolish the entire universe and rebuild it in front of them? What you have here in these "scientists" is the worst kind of hypocrite. They can believe in the Big Bang despite it being unscientific and contrary to all known laws of nature and physics, they can believe in evolution and excuse it with "it takes billions of years" despite no solid evidence that one species can become another, they can believe in a "god particle" of super-condensed matter containing the entire universe in something the size of a marble (and yet can't explain where it came from or how all of that matter came into being to begin with), they can even believe in aliens and argue that things we can't explain may simply be extraterrestrial phenomena....but they cannot, under any circumstance, consider for even a single moment that maybe, just maybe, "God did it" unless they personally witness with all their senses God manifesting Himself in physical form and doing it right in front of them.

"...if it was economically viable"

That is the real focal point, here. The fact is cancer is already preventable, even curable. Through healthy living and dietary habits. But there's no money in that. The medical field makes hundreds of thousands of dollars A DAY on cancer "treatments" that only force the tumors into temporary remission before coming back stronger and more widespread than before (or outright causing MORE cancer resulting form the bombardment of radiation). And really, it all boils down to that. If we all ate healthier, and if the government kept their "science" the hell away from our food and we ate more NATURAL sustenance instead of this cocktail of dyes, preservatives, and synthetic garbage many of the diseases, disorders, and deformities we strive to "cure" today wouldn't' even exist. And you know, if so many "scientists" weren't so busy trying to cook up new bugs we wouldn't have so many to vaccinate and treat, nor would we have so many new strains to contend with. Gruinard Island? Plum Island? Vozrozhdeniya Island? Colloquially referred to as "Anthrax Island?" Ring any bells? Or are you one of those people that naively believes "science and the government would never do anything that might hurt anyone?" But really nothing in your little story there says anything about how the theory that a tadpole can one day become a brontosaurus has been a tangible benefit to mankind, nor the idea that the universe began as some cosmic flatulence.

"Indoctrination?"

Yes, indoctrination. Look it up if you are unfamiliar with the word. Guess what is taught in public (and in many private) schools: evolution and the Big Bang. Guess what these THEORIES are taught as: indisputable FACT. Guess what happens to a student if he suggests a divine hand has any bearing on the universe: the teacher fails him, and the other students mock him. Guess what is casually referred to as "Common knowledge" in everything from books to movies to TV shows to youtube miniseries: the Earth is billions upon billions of years old, man evolved from monkeys, and if there is a God He's akin to some bratty little kid with a magnifying glass cooking ants. I once questions my biology teacher, confronting him with the various holes in these theories. He responded "I know it's a load of crap, but this is what I have to teach." I asked, then, why not offer alternative theories as well, teach a broad spectrum of possibilities and let the students dig in deeper and learn for themselves? His answer was that he was not allowed. Only evolution. Only the Big Bang. No other theory or possibility was allowed to be taught or even discussed. Well, I discussed it anyway. That was over a decade ago. The war on God has only elevated since. Back then the students might mock you if you tried to talk about God. These days even the teachers will take great pleasure in making a spectacle of you. Why? Indoctrination. It's not enough to only teach one side, they must malign and detract from the other even if the best they can do is throw petty insults that hold no bearing on the truth behind the belief. Welcome to the world you live in. Step outside your door and see it for yourself. I sure do.

"Who says life is insignificant"

Evolution does. You don't matter. Only your offspring, and only if they are stronger and better adapted than you are. If you don't reproduce, you're worthless. If you can't reproduce, you're less than worthless. In evolution it is only the progression, not the individual, that matters. In evolution there is no room for sentience, intelligence, certainly not creativity or compassion. Evolution cannot even explain these things. Evolution suggests that our every thought is merely the result of random chemical reactions happening haphazardly in our heads (which begs the contradiction: if evolution says we can't trust our own thoughts, how then can the thought of evolution be real?). Furthermore evolution teaches this idea of "survival of the fittest." And what defines the "fittest?" You do. I do. He does. She does. They do. We do. The kid with the gun does. The man with the knife does. The power-hungry tyrant with an army does. No, Hitler wasn't a scientist and no, his decisions were not "informed by science" because evolution in the sense of "the superior species" and in terms of MACRO-evolution is not science. But that didn't stop him from slaughtering millions for the idea. And why did he slaughter millions? How did that not weigh on his conscience? Because evolution told him those people didn't matter, their lives had no significance, they were not the "master race" and thus they were leeches, insects, parasites, obstacles to be removed to pave the way and free up land and resources for those who were "the fittest." Again I ask, how has that tangibly IMPROVED our lives? I have no doubts whatsoever about the tangible IMPACT it has had on the world, but "improvement?" Not on your life.

"They chose to interact with their phone while driving, so the consequences are on them, not their tech."

Personal accountability. That's a dirty notion in today's society. Some might even call it a hateful one. After all how can people sue for hundreds of thousands of dollars over spilling hot coffee on their lap if they have to be responsible for their own actions? But that is neither here nor there. We're talking about whether or not technology has presented a tangible improvement to our lives. When the same tech that can connect you to your loved ones can also be the reason they will never see you again, it's high time to weigh the cost of the "benefits." Personally I have seen that with every new advancement in "connectivity" we become more and more disconnected from the people and indeed the very world around us. But that is only my opinion, based upon observation.

"No science says that."

Technically, you're right. No true "science" says that. But the "science" that modern "scientists" are pushing as "irrefutable and indisputable truth," namely evolution and the big bang, BOTH say "there is no god, nor any need for there to be a god." It's about going beyond the surface and grasping the greater implications. If I say "I have testes and no ovaries" I did not SAY, explicitly, that I am a man, but the simple fact is men have testes and not ovaries, therefore it is implied. When this "science" says that the universe was created by a massive, cataclysmic explosion, guess what it's implying? "God didn't create this." When this "science" says "Man evolved from apes that evolved from lesser monkeys that evolved from lesser mammals that evolved from..." so on and so forth, guess what the implication is there:"God did not create man." And again I will refer you to the Stephen Hawking program "Do we need God" in which he flat out claims that God is entirely unnecessary and thus there is no reason at all to believe He even exists outside of small-minded superstition.

"it probably does have a programmed answer for the origin of the universe"

I'll send you back up a few paragraphs to the topic of "indoctrination." I'll bet hard cash that Siri will not say "the popular but unfounded THEORY is that the universe began with a massive explosion flinging matter across the cosmos that randomly and with no reason or external force began to spin itself into galaxies, stars, and planets and somehow, despite there being no proof nor evidence to suggest it is even possible, lifeless matter coalesced and became sentient beings who, over the course of an unconfirmed amount of time eventually gained the intelligence to create this chunk of plastic and silicone you have just asked to explain to you where you came from."

"In case you haven't noticed, God is not exactly "popular."

Well, about seventy-seven percent of Americans are Christian, so I'm pretty sure he's a popular guy. I think your particular version of Christian beliefs may not be represented as much, but that's because most Christians don't reject scientific theories.


"And you actually believed that bit of PR nonsense?"

Yeah. He's telling the truth.


"That is the real focal point, here. The fact is cancer is already preventable, even curable. Through healthy living and dietary habits."

Some people receive cancer from diseases, and some have it genetically. Your prescription is useless to them.


"You don't matter. Only your offspring, and only if they are stronger and better adapted than you are. If you don't reproduce, you're worthless."

I bring value to my own life independent of my genetic function. Evolution is just a description of a process; it doesn't place value on life either way, it just happens.


"And what defines the "fittest?"

The one who reproduces the most is considered "the fittest" in that theory because they pass on more of their genetic material. It doesn't necessarily refer to physical ability, nor does it apply a value on people who reproduce more. They are not colloquially the fittest or nicest or smartest; they just had more kids.


"Guess what these THEORIES are taught as: indisputable FACT."

A scientific theory is the best explanation for a phenomenon; it is the highest level of certainty scientists can have about something. The Laws of Physics are theories. Gravity is a theory. The Laws of Motion are theories. A scientific theory is not the same as a colloquial usage of theory. It's as close to a fact as you can get without producing a more compelling theory.


"When the same tech that can connect you to your loved ones can also be the reason they will never see you again."

Again, they made the choice. The phone didn't force them. You could just as easily say if we didn't have cars, they also would not have crashed, so the same technology that takes us quickly to loved ones can be the reason we never see them again. However, the convenience and usefulness of both technologies is evidenced by their widespread use, and the vast majority of people who use a car or a cellphone survive. Net win.


"I will refer you to the Stephen Hawking program "Do we need God" in which he flat out claims that God is entirely unnecessary and thus there is no reason at all to believe He even exists outside of small-minded superstition."

I'd love to watch it.


"I'll bet hard cash that Siri will not say "the popular but unfounded THEORY is that the universe began with a massive explosion flinging matter across the cosmos that randomly and with no reason or external force began to spin itself into galaxies, stars, and planets and somehow, despite there being no proof nor evidence to suggest it is even possible, lifeless matter coalesced and became sentient beings who, over the course of an unconfirmed amount of time eventually gained the intelligence to create this chunk of plastic and silicone you have just asked to explain to you where you came from."

She probably says, "Steve Jobs."


"No, Hitler wasn't a scientist and no, his decisions were not "informed by science" because evolution in the sense of "the superior species" and in terms of MACRO-evolution is not science."

Superior race, you mean. Humans are one species. Macroevolution is evolution, and it is science. Hitler's opinions were not informed by science.


"And why did he slaughter millions? How did that not weigh on his conscience? Because evolution told him those people didn't matter."

Hitler did what he did based on his own agenda and preconceptions of Jewish people and presented pseudoscience and propaganda to do it. He was not compelled to commit the Holocaust based on honest scientific data.


I am sorry your faith in Jesus is so threatened by science. It doesn't have to be. :/

"seventy-seven percent of Americans are Christian"

The number I've heard is 78%. And yet homosexuality, abortion, marijuana, all passed by popular vote. Democrats who demand the Bible be removed from all reality, who say conservatives should no longer have the right to even TALK about God, who wanted the Ten Commandments removed from all government buildings, who will protect the rights of a Muslim and tell a Christian to go screw himself and get the hell off that soapbox, are elected by popular vote. You see, of the 78% who CLAIM to be Christian, I'd wager more than half are "Christian" simply because they are not Muslim, Buddhist, Taoist, etc. They don't actually believe any of it, they certainly don't follow any of it, it's merely a matter of "I think there might be a god and I'm fairly sure his name isn't Allah, Zeus, or Odin." Some think God made the world and then took a nap and never came back to it. Some believe God did it all but just takes a purely supervisory role in the universe. Some think God is just one of many, many divine forces and deities in existence. 78% is just a number. A statistic. That's how many people checked a little box on a piece of paper. Not how many people gave their lives to Jesus.

"He's telling the truth"

And yet, the evidence to support his beliefs are shoddy, and more often than not points back to the Bible. And still he insists that his "truth" is real.

"Your prescription is useless to them"

And bombarding their bodies with radiation, meds with far more side effects than benefits, and a cocktail of other hazardous chemicals being pumped through their bodies until they have no immune system left, bones brittle as rotten twigs, and a thousand NEW ailments that they can no longer resist isn't going to change that, either. But my "prescription" will give them strength, and relatively good health, and can actually REVERSE the effects, genetic or not.

"I bring value to my own life independent of my genetic function"

But that is not evolution. You see, you're trying to put a little humanity into something that is inhumane. Evolution doesn't give a damn about you or your views on life. Evolution puts no value on an individual, only their potential genetic potential. And it's entirely arbitrary. People can interpret it any way they wish. For the animals, it's pretty straight-forward. Ether you live and reproduce, or you die. The thing is, evolution says man is no better than beast. Survival of the fittest must be a universal rule. And the simple truth, whether you like it or not, is that there are people who will take lives based on their own perception of who is "fit" to live, and who is not. Again I say, this, THIS RIGHT HERE, brings no "tangible benefit" to mankind.

"It doesn't necessarily refer to physical ability"

But it does. Evolution says that survival is the right only of those who are the best adapted to their environment and are therefore able to thrive. If they struggle, dead. If they cannot reproduce, dead. If they can't adapt to change, dead. But the point is moot.

"The Laws of Physics are theories"

This applies to that whole paragraph, but that line sums it up best. You're wrong. Laws are laws. That's why they get to be called LAWS. That is why scientists speak about the LA of gravity and the THEORY of Evolution. If it was as easily tested and proven as gravity it would be called the LAW of evolution. You mocked me for explaining the standard boiling point of water because I didn't explain there are factors that can alter it, and then you come back with THIS? "Scientific" or not, a theory is a guess that has yet to be proven as fact. And yet these theories of evolution and the Big Bang are taught, and sustained, as undeniable truth, irrefutable fact, as "common sense" as gravity, as plain and obvious as the nose on your face.

"I'd love to watch it."

Go for it. Watch this "open-minded scientist" deny God not by fact, but by the pure, unadulterated BS that spewed from his rectum why? Because the existence of God means Stephan Hawking isn't Him.

"Macroevolution is evolution, and it is science."

No, macro-evolution is not science. And is science? Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of TESTABLE explanations and predictions. Evolution itself is not testable. MACRO evolution most certainly is not testable. It's not even OBSERVABLE (the other key characteristic of ACTUAL science). So no, by definition, evolution is not science.

But you're wrong about me, you know. My faith is not threatened by science. Quite the opposite, really. Science is threatened by faith.

"The number I've heard is 78%. And yet homosexuality, abortion, marijuana, all passed by popular vote."

Again, that doesn't mean Christianity isn't popular, just that many Christians disagree with you on these issues.


"Democrats who demand the Bible be removed from all reality."

Name them. They're wrong to demand such a thing, if they exist and you've accurately conveyed their intent. Removing the Ten Commandments from governmental buildings is not removing the Bible from reality.


"Laws are laws. That's why they get to be called LAWS."

No. They are theories. Here's your law of gravity; the General Theory of Relativity. See? In science, theories are big deals. Gravity is a theory. Evolution is a theory. It is the closest thing to a fact that we can have without better understanding the forces that cause a phenomena.


"Watch this "open-minded scientist" deny God not by fact, but by the pure, unadulterated BS that spewed from his rectum why? Because the existence of God means Stephan Hawking isn't Him."


Gasp. Blasphemy. Why does Stephen Hawking come up so much with this group? Last journal it was all about how Hawking believes that reality is subjective, which he does not, now he believes he's god? Next journal will be about how he's never explicitly condemned puppy mills. The heartless bastard.


"You mocked me for explaining the standard boiling point of water because I didn't explain there are factors that can alter it"

No, you flat-out said water boils at 100 degrees Celsius no matter where you are in the universe, and that isn't true. It wasn't a matter of not mentioning some niggling little details. Water only boils at 100 degrees Celsius at sea-level on Earth.


"No, macro-evolution is not science."

Is too.


"Evolution itself is not testable."

Sure is.


"MACRO evolution most certainly is not testable. It's not even OBSERVABLE (the other key characteristic of ACTUAL science)."

Very observable, and testable on species with small enough lifespans to allow us to observe genetic changes that result in two separate populations that cannot interbreed from one initial population that could. And then there's all dem fossils, but paleontology is probably in good with those biologists and physicists who are just trying to disprove God.


"But you're wrong about me, you know."

Maybe. What would change your mind on the science you reject? What would it take to convince you that it isn't pseudoscience?

"Again, that doesn't mean Christianity isn't popular, just that many Christians disagree with you on these issues."

You see, that's where your flaw lies. But you're not the only one who makes this mistake. It's not a matter of them agreeing with ME. I'm nothing. I'm nobody. What I say has no bearing. But if they are supporting these agendas the one they are defying is not me, it's God. I'm not a part of that equation in any way. I don't even have to exist in any plane of reality for these people to be "Christian" in name only with no true convictions or commitment to the God they claim to follow. If I went out right now and shot someone point blank in the face, would you say that's ungodly because YOU say so, or because the BIBLE (God's Word) says so? Think about it.

"Removing the Ten Commandments from governmental buildings is not removing the Bible from reality."

No, but banning it from public schools and courthouses, demanding that nobody be allowed to read from it nor quote it in public and most certainly not on TV (explicit sex, drug paraphernalia, graphic violence, gratuitous vulgarities, that is all "perfectly acceptable forms of free speech as guaranteed by the constitution," but not the Bible), publically attacking Christianity and having it labeled as a "discriminatory and hate-mongering cult," branding all talk of Christianity in any way OTHER than running it down as "hate speech" (if you tell someone they're a sinner, you've committed a hate crime. Rationalize that one), all these AND MORE (this is just the tip of the iceberg) make it pretty clear liberals (Democrats) have declared all-out war on the very existence of God and His people. Wake up, buttercup, take the blinders off, and LOOK at the world around you for once.

"Gravity is a theory. Evolution is a theory."

Take a pen in your hand. Extend your arm out to your side. Release the pen. What happens? Gravity. Now do evolution. Oh, wait, you CAN'T. What kind of ignorant MORON would say the two are in any way comparable? BUt let's dig this whole even deeper (apparently you don't even need a shovel).

"No, macro-evolution is not science." "Is too." "Evolution itself is not testable." "Sure is."

Science, in a nutshell, is that which can be both OBSERVED and TESTED. So, do science. Show me OBSERVABLE evidence of a rainbow trout becoming a mastodon. Show me a repeatable, reproducible TEST by which I, in a laboratory environment, can turn my "home grown" protozoan into a flamingo. After all, "it is, too, science," so that should be simplicity itself, shouldn't it? After all EVERYONE can grab a thermometer, a pot full of water, and a heat source to test at which temperature that water boils. It is TESTABLE and OBSERVABLE therefore by definition that is SCIENCE. So again I defy you to show me OBSERVABLE, TESTABLE Macro-evolution in action. Show me one SPECIES of living creature becoming a completely DIFFERENT species of living creature, because it's "science."

"genetic changes that result in two separate populations that cannot interbreed from one initial population that could"

You mean like a mule, that can't breed PERIOD? And on the evolutionary scale that ranks just above shooting yourself in the face as far as being able to continue a species and thus further this "evolutionary line."

"all dem fossils"

You mean the ones showing absolutely nothing in one period, and then, suddenly, a massive VARIETY of species, almost as if (wait for it) they were all created at the SAME FREAKIN' TIME!? Or the select few that atheists pick and choose to talk about because, in their own little minds, these displaced examples taken out of context create a rickety scaffold upon which to build their entire perception of reality in spite of the ACTUAL evidence they choose to ignore? SEriously, go read something.

"What would change your mind on the science you reject? What would it take to convince you that it isn't pseudoscience."

I have issued my challenge. Don't give me innuendos, don't give me this double-talk BULLSHIT for lack of a more appropriate term, and stop speaking in generalities. If your so-called "science" of evolution is so darned bulletproof that it can usurp every other belief in the world, it should be absolutely no issue at all for you to show me:

-Concrete PROOF, not hear-say
-OBSERVABLE proof, not empty theories
-TESTABLE factors, not an unimaginative slew of cop-outs
-SPECIFIC, DETAILED examples, not "oh there's a bunch of stuff that some dude somewhere wearing a white coat may or may not have said at some point would probably definitely but not entirely prove that this could theoretically be a distinct possibility if certain undefined factors were perfectly aligned in a way they have never been throughout all of recorded history."

Do you know why I believe "the God theory" and not some twisted bastardization masquerading as "science?" Because a DOCTOR, a CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL, a so-called "expert" told a ten year old me that I would need a root canal to rip a tooth out of the front of my face because it was "irreparably internally shattered beyond any hope of saving." Another "expert" told my dad he would be dead before his 50th birthday. Yet another told my mom she wouldn't last another six months. Others have told people I am close to that they would never kick their addictions, that it was a disease they simply could not escape. Still others were told they would have to live with certain debilitating conditions for the rest of their lives. Well that tooth is rock solid, in fact it's the most solid tooth in my mouth. My dad is 55 and still going strong despite more "experts" telling him he should be bedridden at this point. It has been YEARS since my mother was told she only had months. Addictions have been forsaken, health issues have vanished, blind eyes see, deaf ears hear, malformed legs stand tall, misshapen arms straighten, undeveloped appendages form, and all the so-called "Experts," all these people trained in all manner of biological and medical SCIENCE (actual testable, observable, PROVEN science) can do is scratch their asses and GAWK like dumbstruck dullwits because THEIR books have no explanation for this phenomena. Their labs cannot reproduce it. Their tests are no longer reliable.All of what they THINK they know goes out the window because the One who MADE the universe writes His own rules and I have PERSONALLY OBSERVED the truth of His Word in action. I'm still waiting for you to show me an OBSERVABLE example of one KIND becoming another, a.k.a. macro-evolution, a.k.a. Darwinian evolution. Showing me that one member of a species can be better adapted and produce more members of its same species is not macro-evolution, technically it's not even evolution. It's adaptation. It's nature. Show me macro-evolution. Show me this proof you rely so heavily upon. You would be the FIRST in the world to ever do so.

"What I say has no bearing. But if they are supporting these agendas the one they are defying is not me, it's God."

According to you. Your fellow Christians would disagree. God seems rather silent on the whole affair.


"What kind of ignorant MORON would say the two are in any way comparable?"

Scientists who know what a scientific theory means. Which is all of them.


"Wake up, buttercup, take the blinders off, and LOOK at the world around you for once."

If I do, you gotta meet me halfway and do the same.


"You mean like a mule, that can't breed PERIOD? And on the evolutionary scale that ranks just above shooting yourself in the face as far as being able to continue a species and thus further this "evolutionary line."

A mule is actually a good example of two species, horses and donkeys, who have drifted apart genetically enough that they can reproduce. However, their offspring almost always is sterile precisely because horses and donkeys are too different genetically to be compatible. Ligers would be another example of such evolutionary changes between tigers and lions, who once shared a common ancestor.


"After all, "it is, too, science," so that should be simplicity itself, shouldn't it?"

Who said science was simplicity itself? No one who studied science. Science is hard.


"SEriously, go read something."

No problem. I have done as you requested. I read Escape, by Carolyn Jessop. It was engaging, if a bit shocking and sad. However, my reading of Escape seemed rather irrelevant.


"I have issued my challenge."

Alright. If you are actually interested in challenging your preconceptions about evolution, why not watch some videos on it?

Here's a brief summary of all the evidence supporting evolution: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIEoO5KdPvg

Here is a biologist answering questions and criticism of evolution that you have also raised: https://youtu.be/jNhtbmXzIaM?t=2m5s

It you've made it this far, here is the Wikipedia page explaining that when scientists mean evolution is a theory, they mean it is well-substantiated science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolut.....act_and_theory

I'll leave you to it.

"If I went out right now and shot someone point blank in the face, would you say that's ungodly because YOU say so, or because the BIBLE (God's Word) says so? Think about it."

Probably neither. I don't evaluate people by the bible. I'd think that you should be in prison based on my personal belief that your actions were wrong.

Some more articles:

This one is important because it addresses some questions and preconceptions you had. http://www.scientificamerican.com/a.....o-creationist/

This one goes into depth on the scientific evidence for Macroevolution.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

This video addresses some of your questions and assumptions while also reading a Chick Tract on evolution! Oooh! https://youtu.be/B_CzP7ACXEk?t=3m20s

Finally, if you are able to complete the challenge of the following video, you will not only defeat evolution, but you will also be eligible for a Nobel Prize. Seriously. No fooling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r0zpk0lPFU

"God seems rather silent on the whole affair."

He wrote a Book about it. Maybe you should go read it.

"Scientists who know what a scientific theory means"

Which apparently does not include you, as you believe a THEORY is the same as a LAW even though they are two very different terms with very different meanings within AND without the scientific community. But you have answered my question as to exactly what kind of moron believes otherwise. I believe the appropriate meme goes "you're a special kind of stupid, ain't ye?"

Oh, and all your links? I did not see a single creature become a completely different creature by any observable or testable means. I did not see any kind of ACTUAL SCIENCE taking place. You know what I DID see? Words like "theorize," "hypothesize," "assume." Know what else I saw? A lot of cop-outs and flat-out BULL. "We can't test this PHILOSOPHICAL THEORY that all of reality is merely an illusion in our own mind, therefore Macro-evolution is perfectly valid without ever being tested, observed, or in any way proven." Oh, and a lot of posturing and degrading of any and all other theories without actually disproving any of them.

By the way, find me a Nobel Prize presenter. "Common descent" is the most simple lie to expose. The concept assumes all life on Earth descended fro a single ,common ancestor due to certain genetic commonalities across the globe. Here's where the "best and brightest" kick themselves in the head for missing the obvious: Carbon-based life forms that must be able to process the sugars, proteins, and other such nutrients provided (directly or indirectly) by OTHER carbon-based life forms MUST HAVE SIMILAR INTERNAL WORKINGS WITH WHICH TO PROCESS THESE SAME NUTRIENTS. I'm trying to keep it relatively calm, civil, and clean here, but HOLY FUCK dude how freaking STUPID are you?! In order to process Glucose, for example, all manner of life form that ingests, absorbs, or otherwise "acquires" said Glucose as sustenance must have the proper enzymes or other such digestive/processing cells within them to break the Glucose down to be "burned" for life-sustaining energy. You and all these so-called "intelligent, open-minded scientists" immediately jump to "there's common DNA therefore they must all come from the same ancestor."

Your "top scientists" say we share anything from 50-98% of our DNA with BANANAS. SO I guess logically, some of us "evolved" from monkeys, and people like you evolved from monkey fodder. You are an ignorant, ill-informed, blind, empty-headed little SHEEP in human flesh. I'm done with this discussion. I issued a challenge, and you failed to meet it. Miserably. Just more of the same smoke & mirrors and quick-talking, long-worded bullshit that impresses simple minds like yours into believing they actually know what they're talking about. When you actually develop this skill known as "critical thinking," maybe you can try again. Absolutely nothing you have said has had even one iota of validity.

"He wrote a Book about it. Maybe you should go read it."

What's it called? Why Evolution is Wrong, by God? I'll look it up.


"Which apparently does not include you, as you believe a THEORY is the same as a LAW even though they are two very different terms with very different meanings within AND without the scientific community."

*facepalm* That's an absurd caricature of what I said. Watch the video with the biologist. They discuss scientific theory and laws and what is meant by both.


"I did not see a single creature become a completely different creature by any observable or testable means."

The evidence was presented. It is confirmed by multiple strains of science, and all the challenges you had for evolution were addressed. You didn't even look.


"I'm trying to keep it relatively calm, civil, and clean here, but HOLY FUCK dude how freaking STUPID are you?!"

You have failed.


"By the way, find me a Nobel Prize presenter. "Common descent" is the most simple lie to expose.

The challenge was to identify "created kinds." Since you mentioned "kinds" in a previous comment, I thought it would be appropriate. However, you have failed to watch the video or read the description of the video, or otherwise chose to ignore it, because you didn't address the challenge at all. :/


"You and all these so-called "intelligent, open-minded scientists" immediately jump to "there's common DNA therefore they must all come from the same ancestor."

Nope. Had you bothered to watch the videos, you'd know that the consensus of common ancestry is built on a multitude of evidence from many fields of science.


"SO I guess logically, some of us "evolved" from monkeys,"

No one evolved from monkeys. Monkeys and humans share a common ancestry. Had you watched the videos, or read the articles, you'd realize evolution doesn't argue humans evolved from monkeys, even if you didn't agree with it.


"You are an ignorant, ill-informed, blind, empty-headed little SHEEP in human flesh."

Funny. You are the one with a shepherd, little lamb. :P


"I'm done with this discussion. I issued a challenge, and you failed to meet it."

I did my best. Since you already stated you'd throw out anything you thought conflicted with your religious beliefs, I didn't stand much of a chance anyway. Still, I enjoyed the discussion. Thank you for it.


"When you actually develop this skill known as "critical thinking," maybe you can try again. Absolutely nothing you have said has had even one iota of validity."

Nothing I say can be valid for your worldview to work, so I do sort of understand why this particular post was more hostile than the former ones. You are not interested in confronting your views on evolution. That is fine. They are wrong, but that's not a crime, and it doesn't make you a bad person.

Seeya.

As I said, nothing you offered presented any "new" information, or any REAL information at all. And by the way, saying "it's confirmed by so many sources" and yet not being able to actually NAME any of these sources means absolutely nothing. You're right, I didn't bother with the videos because I"m on a computer that can't handle video. I tried your articles, one came back non-existent entirely, and the other seemed completely focused on this idea that having common biological components makes everything a direct descendant of a single ancestor and then proceeded not to actually prove or even support anything it said, but rather to try to discredit all other theories on the basis of "they're not this one."

So as I'm feeling generous, I will give you one last chance to give me something REAL. I gave you a list of parameters. I added a new "requirement" in my previous paragraph in that it can't be...well, basically everything you've claimed as "proof," which is to say "oh there's lots of evidence and examples" and yet being entirely unable to produce even ONE specific instance.

In fact, I'm feeling so generous I'll tell you EXACTLY what I need to see. Show me a salamander turning into a chicken. No photoshop, no CGI, nothing artificial, and no "oh we have this skeleton over here and this one over there and because I'm wearing a white coat I say this one evolved into that one," because really, that is all that your "evidence" is.

This is the article that was missing. Hopefully it works this time.




"You are an ignorant, ill-informed, blind, empty-headed little SHEEP in human flesh. I'm done with this discussion."

This conversation has concluded.

Ok, so let's look at these "15 answers."

1) No actual evidence, no substantiation, absolutely nothing at all. By the way, Darwin was not a scientist. He was just a dude making some observations. He, himself, expressed immense confusion over how much people were making a fuss over it, saying "it was only a theory," an ACTUAL theory, not a "scientific" theory. JUST a theory.

2) Doesn't really address the circular logic, only assumes that a certain situation they fabricate will work out the way they think it is. Large beaks might be better adapted, small beaked might be far more aggressive and kill off the large beaks. Small beaks by virtue of their greater numbers may destroy the seed-bearing plants trying to get to the seeds that they can't eat. Crazy thought: scientists don't know everything, and not everything goes the way they say it has to go to support their fabrications.

3) Merely explains that because they are GUESSING at how things happened, they assume evolution is "verifiable." One single, solitary skeleton found thousands of miles from one other single, solitary skeleton with slightly different bone structure is what passes as the "fossil evidence" evolutionists rally behind. Imagine a paleontologist 500+ years fro now unearthing the skeletons of Verne Troyer and Andre the Giant. Oh what havoc that will wreak upon the "scientific" community.

4) Let's see, "because somebody still writes about it, nobody has stopped believing in evolution." Yea, because THAT makes perfect sense. "Because we're a bunch of close-minded atheists that absolutely refuse to accept evidence right in front of our faces because doing so is tantamount to admitting there COULD be a divine creator, we reject all such evidence and those who present it, thus we, in our ignorance, will consider these sources to not be 'serious' or 'credible' simply because they do not reflect our limited perspective." And finally "there are credible sources that point out the flaws and holes in our little 'theory' that make it entirely impossible to believe, but because they are antievolution we'll imply their full of it."

5) So, admitting that there are disputes all the way down to the very foundation of what evolution is somehow makes them all go away? If something is "universally true," wouldn't it be logical that there is no room for dispute?

6) So, pretty much avoids the question and raises a far more pertinent one: why are humans the only ones capable of, well, anything that we are capable of? Are are there no other species that build, develop, create, invent? Why are there no other species in the world that create technology to make their lives easier. No other species that have philosophical discussion, religious practices, etc. Why? Why have no other species ever developed anything remotely similar to humanity?

7) That might explain (insubstantial at best) how "life" happened, but not sentience. Not intelligence. Not creativity, emotion, passion, affection.

8) Ties in with 7 quite nicely. Here's a simple question: why have there been no other "emerging species" since the "origin of life?" Think about it. If all of this world's billions of lifeforms began as with random elements become compounds, and those random compounds becoming proteins, etc., and those newly formed "building blocks" just happened to come together and create the first lifeform, why have we not seen ANY new emerging lifeforms spawning from the ether to substantiate this wild hypothesis? mathematical odds quickly become a moot point. At no point in recorded history have we seen that this is even POSSIBLE, much less how PROBABLE it might be.

9) So...because there are snowflakes, we evolved from pond scum? Because water freezing while falling from the sky forms unique crystalline formations, highly complex, self-healing, self-replicating, self-sustaining LIFE can come from absolutely NOTHING.

10) This one I don't have to read their answer, as I do agree the "question" is flawed. A "mutation" is anything that deviates from the "norm." Whether it's a malformed limb, or an additional, fully-functional limb, it's still a mutation. The thing is, dramatic mutations require significant external stimulus. Radiation, severe biochemical exposure, etc.; stimulants that have only existed in the last couple hundred years at best. Not billions of years, not millions of years, not even thousands of years.

11) More of the same empty mouth-breathing as #2.

12) So wait..."We don't know that it doesn't happen so we'll assume that it does because that supports our agenda." Of course, how silly of me, that's what passes for "science" these days.

13) Oh look: https://answersingenesis.org/missin.....lown-the-coop/
And then there's the remarkable resemblance between an assumed "ancestor" of humanity...and the not so ancient bonobos ape. Remember a few "answers" back when I mentioned Verne Troyer (2'8") and Andre (7'4")? Remember what I said before about "scientists" taking ONE fossil and running wild with it? Remember what I said about "scientists" ASSUMING rather than actually TESTING and PROVING their "facts?" Yea.

14) Eyes, hearts, lungs, kidneys, basically any other internal organ, the entire species of Bombardier beetle, and many, many, many, many, MANY more examples...individual structures or ENTIRE creatures that cannot exist in "half-assed" form. And yet, once again, evolutionists insist that they simply MUST have existed simply because failure to do so is tantamount to finally admitting evolution is impossible.

15) Seeing as these answers (and other, far more ambitious proponents than you) have not been able to fight this simplistic logic, I'll bring it up here: take a fine, precision-crafted Swiss watch, dismantle it entirely, and put the pieces in a box. Now shake the box. Keep shaking it. Five minutes, five years, five million years, when you open that box you will not find a fine, precision-crafted Swiss watch. You will find a box full of tiny, dented, mangled pieces. And that's using components that are actually DESIGNED to fit together. Evolution says to take a chunk of unrefined, raw copper, another chunk of raw, unrefined zinc, ditto for carbon, iron, aluminum, and other base elements, and put them in that same box, and without you even touching said box they will MIRACULOUSLY form the necessary alloys, shape themselves into the requisite components, and assemble themselves into the necessary configuration to produce the desired result.

And then we come down to brass tacks. Here, in these "15 answers" as with any other "scientific" explanation that you, the blind devotee, cling to with ignorant desperation, I have noticed a continuous trend. Something you apparently fail to grasp. I guess in addition to being a poor scientist, you're not much of a linguist either. Go ahead, read the "explanations" on that site again. Re-read your other "evidence." Let's see if you notice these words and phrases coming up:

Might

Could

May

Assuming

Presumably

Could possibly, might possible, conceivably it could, so on and so forth. Not "it does." Not "It did." Not "it will." No certainty, no conviction, nothing solid, nothing conclusive, absolutely nothing in any way resembling the type of language used when talking about FACTS and TRUTH. Water WILL boil, water WILL freeze, gravity WILL pull any object towards its center at a rate of 9.8 feet per second, at least according to the STANDARD (I know you get confused with that). We don't say "gravity MIGHT pull an object towards the center of its force." We don't say "water COULD freeze at a certain, indeterminate temperature." We don't say "Presumably, human beings need oxygen to breathe." No, we speak with CERTAINTY because REAL science has PROVEN these "theories" to be FACT.

Now, I'm still waiting for you to PROVE evolution. The challenge still remains uncontested.

So do you want to continue discussing this or not? Perhaps we should continue in notes.

There's no longer a discussion. I have set a challenge before you. You continually claim that evolution is "science" and that, in spite of there being absolutely nothing of any REAL substance to support it, you insist it must be true. Therefore, in order to cement it as true science, I have challenged you to show me actual PROOF of an iguana becoming a cow, or a fish becoming a bird, or any of the other harebrained transitions your so-called "scientists" have concocted. Your attempts at circumventing this challenge with pat-answers and double talk have failed. Miserably. "Scientists" deny God because they cannot see Him, hear Him, touch Him, taste or even small Him. Because God doesn't fit into their tiny little box of what is "observable evidence" these small-minded and closed-minded individuals claim He cannot possibly exist, and yet will assume that the "god particle" that allegedly began the universe, "evolution" that supposedly turned inanimate matter into living, breathing, sentient beings capable of abstract thought and philosophical pursuits all exist, sight unseen, simply because "well, it's not God." Really, that's all it boils down to. They need an explanation other than God because if God is out of the picture, man can pretend that HE is god. The "apex of evolution," the "perfect culmination of billions of years of the best and most well-adapted." Ego. Self-importance. If God exists man must be subservient to Him. If God created everything we can't pretend that we own any claim to it. And if such a being exists outside of the very CONCEPTS of time and space, the rules we think govern the universe are subject to change as He sees fit. The thought absolutely terrifies these little buggers because they need to THINK that they know everything in order to feel they have any value or worth in this world. Sad, really.

But, I digress. The challenge still stands. Accept it, or walk away, that's entirely your choice.

"Scientists" deny God because they cannot see Him, hear Him, touch Him, taste or even small Him. Because God doesn't fit into their tiny little box of what is "observable evidence" ...

"Creationists" deny evolution because they cannot see it, hear it, touch it or taste it. Because evolution doesn't fit into their tiny box of what is "observable evidence" ...


"They need an explanation other than God because if God is out of the picture, man can pretend that HE is god."

Do you have proof this is what scientists are thinking? Provide some citations of written statements of scientists saying they would like to wield God-like power.


"The thought absolutely terrifies these little buggers because they need to THINK that they know everything in order to feel they have any value or worth in this world."

Do you have proof the thought of your particular Christian, Creationist god terrifies scientists? Also, please provide some quotes that demonstrate scientists think they know everything.


"There's no longer a discussion."

I'm done, then. I'm not going to try if I can't even convince you of what is meant by a scientific theory, which I quite clearly explained and supported.

Well, "observable evidence" is kind of a crucial component of science, so yea, lacking that, it is by definition impossible to call evolution "science." Funny how that works.

And it's funny how you continually try (and fail) to discredit me, and yet still have not offered anything SOLID to support your own side. I'm still waiting on that irrefutable evidence of a changing in kind. Not assumptions, not "Well these two completely unrelated species COULD have evolved into each other given billions and billions and billions of years of tiny changes that we cannot prove ever happened."

"And it's funny how you continually try (and fail) to discredit me, and yet still have not offered anything SOLID to support your own side."

I'm holding you to the same standard. If you can't provide proof that scientists think the way you claim they do, you're claims are unsubstantiated. It is irrelevant to the theory of evolution, but if what you're saying is true, please provide some proof so we can all see it.


"I'm still waiting on that irrefutable evidence of a changing in kind."

Define a kind. What is a "kind"?


"Not assumptions, not "Well these two completely unrelated species COULD have evolved into each other given billions and billions and billions of years of tiny changes that we cannot prove ever happened."

I'm not addressing more of your incorrect claims on evolution until we agree on what scientists mean when they refer to a scientific theory. You may now respond in a huff. Send me a note if you wish to continue. This topic should not flood this journal anymore.

"Kind," as in something more distinct and distant than "species." For instance, silver-backs and capuchins would be of the same "kind," both being primates despite very stark physical differences. Darwinian evolution, also referred to as "macro-evolution" and collectively falling into the category of "evolution" as a general concept asserts that a complete changing of KIND (not simply species) is responsible for the diversity we see today. As I have mentioned before, a protozoan becoming a fish, a fish becoming a reptile, a reptile becoming a mammal, and that mammal eventually becoming Man. The "evolutionary chain," if you will, upon which all of evolution, as an explanation for the origin of life, hangs. In order for this to be true, or even a sound "scientific" theory, there must be observable, tangible, testable evidence that such things not only HAVE happened, but actually CAN happen in the first place.

I am asking you, point blank, to produce and/or demonstrate observable, testable, tangible PROOF of evolution as a changing of KINDS. Not "well, this salmon became that salmon." I want SCIENTIFIC proof of that salmon turning into a komodo dragon (as an example of how drastic a change is necessary here)

I'm really impressed with your argumentation skills. I've did 2 years and a half of a biology course in a university and you gave arguments I could only remember my professors mentioning. I'm happy to see this

Thank you! It was an interesting conversation. I've never met a Creationist before. I wasn't impressed with their conduct or arguments. That's okay. They weren't impressed by me, either. :P

In the end, none of the sides will agree with the other, eh?

Seems that way sometimes. That's okay. I just like talking to people with different opinions. It's actually made me re-examine my opinions on other things in the past. Not this time, though. Evolution seems like a pretty solid explanation. Most Christians agree, which is great. I'm happy people can have their faith coexist with scientific discoveries. :)

Thank you again for the compliment! It really made my day. I'm glad the posts between myself and Zaffy were interesting. :D

Other religions: I obey, therefore I am accepted by God.

Christianity: I am accepted by God through the work of Jesus Christ, therefore I obey.

Been trying to tell folks that for years. christians do not necessarily represent God. We are told that if we have not love, we have not God. I firmly believe that. Christians have turned more people from God, than anything else. Hard to minister to someones spiritual wounds, when we are beating them to death with law.

“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him…” John 6:44

"Why Jesus?" isn't really the right question. "Why us?" makes more sense.

Why? I saw His work in my life and my reward (my wonderful girlfriend, love her <3) for obeying and serving him. I didnt grow up in church but i dont really like it so i found Him on my own and worship how i see fit

In my mind I follow the teachings of Jesus Christ for his messages of love and acceptance. He preached to and included in his flock those who were pushed aside by society, people who had very little value to most. Of course we usually learn these things as kids, but its only when you start to get older that you truly appreciate them.

Well all I can say Jesus came to me at a young age and filled me with the love I needed. Becoming His sheep was just a natural thing to do. kinda like He chose me to come to Him

I joined this group mainly for a friend who pleaded with me to try. So I did, and I got jack in response. Actually that's a bit of a lie, I feel like I've been cursed since I tried talking to him. I hear this talk of love and I've not felt it for a second. I'm not trying to be a basher, I'm curious about as to how it feels to the rest of you

Since you asked. How I currently feel is a list of things when I think of this particular religion. First and foremost would be used, as I tried to speak to him and he swiftly abandoned me. Second would be anger for all the misfortune in my life, which happens far too often and in too great a manner for it to be simple bad luck. Which brings me to depression. There were points where I've literally begged for help, anything. What I get are more slaps to the face. The only reason I don't have outright contempt is because I've a very good friend whom is a Christian.
So again, from my personal experience, I believe firmly he does dislike some people. He seems kind to you, to which I'm happy for you. I just don't think we were meant to become acquaintances

I'm so sorry, no one should have to feel this way. I definitely don't think he's abandoned you though, he's still here for you.. even if it doesn't seem like it. He loves everyone, no question about it. I don't blame you for jumping to that conclusion, as it seems you've been hurt and it's not easy to try and find faith when you're going through tough stuff. Something that could help might be stepping back from organized religion, and concentrating on a personal relationship with him? Not that you NEED to try and do this, I just know how fulfilling and happy it can be once you achieve that peaceful level of religious acceptance. Bad things still happen of course, and it's not easy to cope with sin and sadness and such. But it's just so.. helpful! I really wish you could have that too! You deserve it just as much as anyone else here.

Religion aside, I hope everything's okay :^(
Depression itself is a battle, let alone mixing in other stresses and problems with religious belief. It's very thoughtful of you to hide how upset you are for the sake of your friend, I admire your strength.

If you want to talk about anything feel free to send me a note. I'm open even if you just need someone to vent to.

Why Jesus? Because it's where God led me. God had reveled himself to me through a couple signs about 8 months before He led me to Christ but when I finally got there He made sure I knew it was the truth. Aside from that however, I just kinda ...knew. I always knew really, I just took awhile to for me to listen.

Why Jesus?..........Well that's easy for me it's faith. My heart and mind tell me what direction is the right path. My mom kind of had an interesting point that who says that all religions that believe in a god can't be right in some way. Just because he is called God by me and another religion calls him something else that they can't be the same person. Look at Native Americans. Even before english settlers came they did believe in a god and saw the good things he did. So because they don't call themselves Christians they are going to hell? It's a lot to think about. I came from a religious family and accepted Christ when I was around 6 or 7. It wasn't until later my walk with Christ became stronger. Watching my brother go through what he did I see the wonderful things God can do. He was in the military a few years, came back a broken man (PTSD and Anger issues), go through a failed marriage that ended in divorce, struggle a few years and then find the light again and accepted Christ fully into his heart. He was able to mend his marriage. He was able to work things out with his ex and now they have remarried and are happier than ever. He is a far better man than he used to be. Seeing the years long struggle for him and suddenly seeing his heart soften and change for the better I know a loving hand of God helped guide him back to the right path. I see stories like this all throughout my life. Through my family and friends. I believe if there wasn't a God then all these miracles I have seen would never have happened and I would have lost my brother for sure.

Why Jesus?... I am a sinner, and this poem is my comfort for being a sinner and the explanation to the answer.
Christians
When I say… “I am a Christian” I’m not shouting “I’m Clean living,”
I’m whispering “I was lost, now I’m found and forgiven.”
When I say… “I am a Christian” I don’t speak of this with pride,
I’m confessing that I stumble and need Christ to be my guide.
When I say… “I am a Christian” I’m not trying to be strong,
I’m professing that I’m weak and need his strength to carry on.
When I say… “I am a Christian” I’m not bragging of success,
I’m admitting I have failed and need God to clean my mess.
When I say… “I am a Christian” I’m not claiming to be perfect,
My flaws are far too visible but, God believes I am worth it.
When I say… “I am a Christian” I still feel the sting of pain…
I have my share of heartaches, so I call upon his name.
When I say… “I am a Christian” I’m not holier then thou,
I’m just a simple sinner who received God’s good grace, somehow!

Why Jesus/Christianity? It helps me find peace of mind in troubling times.

I dont act like my religion is any better than anyone else's (I believe in God, but I don't know, for certain, that he exists. For me, belief does not supplant true knowledge), I just go about my day, and I know I'm blessed to be alive. But I will never force a belief down a person's throat, nor do I expect others to belittle and berate others because they believe in something (that's my issue with Christians today).

But why do I choose Jesus? Because he gives me peace.

I came to Christ at a very young age so I initially chose him through my upbringing and you might say spiritual and experiential confirmation of that intended decision. As I got older I maintained my faith because it was both existentially fulfilling and intellectually compelling. Christianity gave me a sense of purpose and significance, a sanctuary of hope and support, and seemed to make the most sense of reality.

However, my adult life has proven to be more of a challenge. I'm still convinced intellectually that Christianity is true but I find that conviction constantly challenged by the world I see around me and the life that I experience. Also, because of complicated reasons, I don't find the same existential fulfillment and peace in my faith that I use to. Sometimes I feel that I'm just holding on to it in order to avoid the despair and darkness of nihilism which is crouching on the threshold of my heart.

Why Jesus?
Jesus' message of love touched me when I felt so many did not care. I heard the truth. My spirit reacted to it. It is strange for me, because I never doubted Him, from the very beginning. I still feel the same way.
I believe we are born dead....dead in our sins. The only fix for that, is the blood of Jesus.
I hurt. When I hear people react to his love with hate, I hurt for them.
I believe everybody should learn, and apply the word of God to their life.
I believe we should be friends with the unsaved. We are to show his love. How can we love, if we are fighting.
Never dilute the truth. Always present it in love. Not as a club to beat the sin out of people.
I am a lover. I love everyone enough to apply His love in my dealings with others.
Even if I don't agree with someone, I respect their decisions. I pray that others will deal, in respect. I present the word, in a way that respects the person I am talking to.
And for heavens sake listen to what others are trying to say to you.
I have friends who are of about any category you can imagine. And we can discuss things in a respectful manner.
Because of that, they will listen, a lot more than they will to a finger-pointing condemner.
Is my life perfect? By no means. My faith, and future is though. I want to bring as many of my friends with me, as I can!
"I am the way, the truth, and the life, No man cometh to the Father, but by me'" That says it all. Hail King Jesus!

I was raised by a Christian family but around age 14, when I discovered I was bi, I started questioning my faith. After a year or so I decided to stick with it because any other life would be miserable. If I lived in a world without God I would be a very selfish being. I have a God that loves me and that's never going to change. Furthermore, it doesn't make sense to me that a world so vast and complex as ours could exist by chance.

It's a very watered-down explanation but any other would be pretty long.

He gives me comfort and confidence when I need it. He's the ONE

Here's a thought. They can't all be right. But they can all be wrong.

I have never felt such emotional and intellectual liberty as I did when I left all religion behind. No belief is required to lead a fulfilling and happy life. It is a source of sadness that so many feel worthless without belief, and a grim testament to the detrimental effects of indoctrination.

I would say I pity some, but we have all made our decisions. Well, except for the unfortunate victims of indoctrination.