In terms of actual scientific discoveries, the Refuting Evolution book would be your go-to. But not much point recommending stuff if you aren't interested in finding out.

Do you not believe in evolution?

That said, I agree that events 2000 years ago are a bit out of the reach of the scientific method. For this reason you have to use other (quasi-scientific) methods.

Quasi-Science is most definitely NOT science.

Edited 2/5/2020 05:11:07

@Pepe, I agree, at some point there is always a leap of faith involved. But I believe that science and history have a strong case in support of the Bible's claims, though it cannot prove anything.

@Aura, I do and don't believe in evolution. I do agree with downwards evolution (i.e. speciation), of complex organisms becoming less and less complex while becoming more diverse and forming more species due to natural selection. I don't, however, believe that all the life that exists today came from one cell. (which came from where? To date, I have not heard any plausible explanation for this). That kind of evolution requires way too many random beneficial mutations occurring at once, multiple times. I find this especially difficult to swallow when what we observe happening today (via scientific method) is just the opposite - the accumulation of harmful mutations vastly outnumbering beneficial. It's called genetic entropy, it's quite interesting. Anyway, that's just the biggest of the many reasons I don't agree with prokaryote to human evolution.

As for your other point, I agree, quasi-science is not science. But science has its limits, so sometimes other methods (perhaps slightly less objective, though I'm not saying science is purely objective, it's not) need to be used where science fails. For example, the historical methods used to evaluate the reliability of the gospels; where science says "it's in the past, and we can't attest to it" an historian might say "they attest to each other". Might be a bad, simplified example, but it works in my head, let me know if it doesn't in yours!

I am going to say something and I hope it makes sense. It may have something to do with this, or it may not.

On the topic of evolution... Evolution clearly does not have even close to the amount of evidence it would need to actually make a point. Yes, there have been fossils found of animals that have given evidence for evolution. Evolutionists believe that there are "links" between different types of animals (algae, trilobites, fish, mammals, then humans, etc... ). Since the creatures supposedly "evolved" there should be links between the certain types of animals. How many "supposed" links have they found? Well, these.



Archaeopteryx: Evolutionists have long taught that birds evolved from reptiles. This proved hard to support, however, because of a big "missing link"—there was no transitional animal between dinosaur and bird. If only they could find a triceratops sprouting feathers! Then they found archaeopteryx and immediately put it forward as the reptilian-avian link. Archaeopteryx was bird-like, having feathers, wings, and a bill; and it was lizard-like, having teeth, claws, and an unfused backbone. Unfortunately for evolutionists, many reptiles don't have teeth, ostriches do have claws on their wings, penguins have an unfused backbone, and platypuses have bills and lay eggs. So, those characteristics of the archaeopteryx prove nothing. In addition, scientists have yet to find a fossil bearing any kind of a transitional state between scales and feathers; all fossils of feathers are fully formed. Common sense says that archaeopteryx was just a bird.

Lucy: This may be the most famous "missing link." "Lucy" is the name given to a skeleton found in Ethiopia in 1974. Originally, the few bone fragments were thought to be a transitional species between ape and man. The more the bones are studied, however, the more they appear to be simply those of an extinct ape.

Java man: In the late 19th century, a Dutch physician trekked through the jungles of Java in Indonesia and found part of a skull cap, three teeth, and a thigh bone. Despite the facts that the skull and the thigh bone were found fifty feet apart, and there were human skulls in the area, the findings were compiled and (with the help of a talented artist) presented to the world as Homo erectus—a transitional species between man and ape. More likely, the skull fragment is from an extinct ape, and the thigh bone belonged with one of the human skulls. Even evolutionists now admit that specimens of Homo erectus are most likely just variations on normal humans.

Ida: It's still unclear why this nearly complete fossil found in Germany caused such a stir. "Ida" appears to be the fossil of a lemur, lacking only a grooming claw and a row of fused teeth. Evolutionists have declared these minor disparities to be proof that humans descended from lemurs.

The Bible says nothing about "missing links." The creation story found in Genesis does not rely on macroevolution (species-to-species change); therefore, no "links," missing or otherwise, are needed. Instead of a single tree encompassing all animals, the genetic diagram of the Bible is more like a field of bushes. God created many different animals. The cats God made branched into a "bush" of different breeds or varieties through the minor changes of microevolution. Dogs did the same, and then chased the cats.

Atheistic evolutionists claim that their theory "proves" God isn't necessary for the development of life. The Bible says the opposite: evolution isn't necessary for the development of life. God is all that is necessary for life (1 Timothy 6:13). God created the world, and all its animals, in six days. Attempts to explain God's creation without God will always leave missing links.





Cumberland Bone Cave in Maryland: All types of animals at least 41 different animals from all kinds of climates have been found in that cave. Antelopes have been found also. Now how, if we are experiencing climate change and warming of earth, how would antelopes have been found in the cave? Only, a world-wide flood could do that. Many other animals have been found also. There is no possible explanation other than a world-wide flood. There are also many different accounts of the flood.

Edited 2/5/2020 12:36:06

"If there is no god, there is no morality."

This is one of the stupidest stances anyone can possibly hold. Atheists are not immoral. We may have slightly different morals than you, but we have morals, and they have nothing to do with god.

Morals are nothing more than a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do. That inherently has nothing to do with religion.

In fact, I'd consider the biggest difference between my morals and yours is that I don't condone preaching. Believe what you wish, but keep it to yourself. I don't try and convince religious people to stop believing, yet they're constantly preaching at me and other non-believers trying to convince us that we need to believe what they do.

I can prove the Bible is true and God existed. Do you want evidence?

i thought religion was banned from internet

Also without god there are still human value but a lot of human value is placed in God.... hard facts tho pagens never lead crusades of children to their death in the name of “God.” Catholics have a bad rep, too.

@Nauzhror "This is one of the stupidest stances anyone can possibly hold. Atheists are not immoral."
You missed the argument completely, as atheists normally do when this point is made. No one's arguing that someone can't be moral without religion. We're saying that apart from God, there is no basis for morality to exist, ie. objective morality. Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin also had their own beliefs about "what is and is not acceptable for them to do". On what basis would you say they're wrong? Would you preach to them about morality (ie. harming others is wrong), or do you not believe in preaching? ;)
If you were about to run off of a cliff and one of us point that out, are we wrong to do so? Are we just trying to control which way you run, or do we have a reason for pointing that out? In the same way, those who are going to hell should be warned about it and shown a way out, that is Jesus. In Toronto, a street preacher named David Lynn was arrested for telling gay people that God loves them. Now, he can't even rent a church because he was charged with municipal hate speech laws. His message wasn't offensive at all and the whole thing is available on youtube. We (theoretically) have freedom of speech, so don't tell me to keep it to myself, because this is the type of society you're creating. Toronto is a lot more degenerate than other Canadian cities though.

spoiler alert..... universal objective morals don't exist....


also your god does not seem very nice.... making people suffer in eternity for breaking some rules he himself made..... and the only way out is through belive in him..... seems a tad narcissistic to me....

cant you find a nice god to belive in insted?

Edited 2/5/2020 15:41:05

@LND
For morality to come from God, God would have to exist. Since we are still waiting for a god’s existence to be demonstrated, this entire argument is moot. We end the argument there, and tell you to come back when you can show at least one evidence for this 'so called' god.

do you have any suggestion njord? seems a little pessimistic otherwise

@Njord https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iP4A3C3E4Cs RC Sproul - "What's wrong with you people?"

This thread has degenerated from what it once was: wholesome posting of verses from the bible. If we could get back to that instead of pointless arguments, that'd be great.

These discussions are actually the only interesting thing about this thread. It's also interesting to see these defenses on the almightys glory. Sometimes i see the flawedness only when reading it the second time

All hail the supreme leader jeff

that video shows what christianity is, its a good video..... But for us that do not see ourselves as slaves it do seem like the christian god is an ahole while if you see your self as one that needs to summit to god, it seems righteous.


to me it seems like a slave religion

@tacky

its not pesimitic, it is what it is.....

John 15:15 - "No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you."

When we're saved, we're given a new nature ("born again"), so that we desire the same thing God desires for us, and we don't want to continue to do the bad things we used to. In this way, we become progressively righteous, called sanctification. We'll never be completely free from sin, but we will overcome known sins. We're not slaves because Christianity isn't a list of rules we struggle to keep (as many people, including many Christians think), but it's depending on the Holy Spirit to be conformed to Christ, which we desire because of our new nature.
Doubt that'll change your mind, but I explained why it isn't a slave religion.

your talking about something different than in the video you posted, which seems completely like a slave/master dynamic.

So you got a new nature that is better than those not saved.And you will overcome known sin. Thats seems pretty prideful to me

to shoot down someone else’s opinion because it is not your own and not even provide a counter opinion, other than you don’t agree, seems pretty negative/pessimistic

Edited 2/5/2020 21:54:51

I was talking about something different because you were too. You initially said God was narcissistic, so I sent you that video. Then you said that Christianity is a slave religion. Now you're making a new argument, saying it's prideful.
The new nature/Holy Spirit is a gift... how could I be proud of a gift? I deserve hell just as much as anyone else. Even if it was a source of pride, why is that a bad thing according to moral relativism?
Ephesians 2:8-9 - "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast."

if Fizzer created function to mute forum threads I would be so happy...

Edit: There is no argument that would dissuade believers from believing, or dissuade non-believers from not believing, or else it would've been said some time in the last 2,000 years. No point arguing about religion. The Bible has great stories though.
The best argument I have heard in my life to encourage faith in God is Pascal's wager (which in hindsight isn't a very good argument anyway). We can however, go about it pragmatically. We can ask the other side questions that can feasibly be answered (i.e. no questions like "where do we come from?" "who created the universe?" that sort of thing). The point of this is to establish whether or not we need religion.

Do I need to believe in God, to be a good person?

(I haven't read any of the new comments so sorry if I'm interrupting an ongoing argument :P)

Edited 2/5/2020 22:50:44