Originally posted by MetBierOpNo I don't have to watch it, I have my rights not to, I live in a free country, There's nothing that can make me believe in evolution.
If there are any Christians here, which do not believe in evolution.
Please watch this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yktgPZMrl50&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fuser%2FIDoThink1&feature=player_profilepage
and give your reaction
Originally posted by daniel58Of course you don't have to. He did say 'please'. However, I find it strange that if 'nothing can make you believe in evolution' why do you have such a strong reaction to the request and why do you not want to watch it?
No I don't have to watch it, I have my rights not to, I live in a free country, There's nothing that can make me believe in evolution.
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't understand either. Daniel claims to be Catholic and should therefore has no religious grounds to oppose evolutionary theory. But nor does he seem interested to produce scientific arguments against evolutionary theory.
Of course you don't have to. He did say 'please'. However, I find it strange that if 'nothing can make you believe in evolution' why do you have such a strong reaction to the request and why do you not want to watch it?
1 edit
i watched it, it is rather amusing to watch non theists assign values to theists which theists themselves do not in fact hold. Perhaps Daniels reluctance was due to his innate awareness of the futility of arguing with something which makes no sense, who can tell, but as it stands we shall not limit our search for truth to unintelligent agencies!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSince the definition of 'Christianity' is largely incoherent, any attempt to depict it will invariably be labeled as a strawman. You could define it in any number of ways and probably never find a self-professed Christian who agrees with the whole definition. As they all disagree amongst themselves on the definition, all definitions therefore are perceived as strawmen.
i watched it, it is rather amusing to watch non theists assign values to theists which theists themselves do not in fact hold. Perhaps Daniels reluctance was due to his innate awareness of the futility of arguing with something which makes no sense, who can tell, but as it stands we shall not limit our search for truth to unintelligent agencies!
2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettmmm, i think it is quite simple my friend, a Christian is simply one who follows the teachings and the example of Christ, very simple and very clear. the controversy arise on not so much with the definition, at least to me anyway, nor to what Christ taught, but its interpretation.
Since the definition of 'Christianity' is largely incoherent, any attempt to depict it will invariably be labeled as a strawman. You could define it in any number of ways and probably never find a self-professed Christian who agrees with the whole definition. As they all disagree amongst themselves on the definition, all definitions therefore are perceived as strawmen.
1 edit
Originally posted by barstuddWe see evolution every day.
Non believers dont believe in God because they claim they have to see it first to believe.
yet......
Did the non believer see evolution?
because thats what they tend to believe.
With no evolution, the cure against HIV and AIDS would be already be there. But the HIV virus evolutes very quickly.
Without evolution the world would be very much simpler. Per primo, there wouldn't be any life at all.
The evolution is the greatest example of the creation of god.
Are you a believer or a non-believer?
1 edit
Originally posted by barstuddWe see all the physical evidence that supports evolution. An abundance of fossil remains that can be held and studied, for example.
Non believers dont believe in God because they claim have to see it first to believe.
Did the non believer see evolution?
If you find the fossil remains of an angel then maybe you'd be able to build yourself a case.
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettAn abundance of fossil remains that can be held and studied, for example, haha
We see all the physical evidence that supports evolution. An abundance of fossil remains that can be held and studied, for example.
If you find the fossil remains of an angel then maybe you'd be able to build yourself a case.
Lol, you should know better than that you bad ol putty cat!
'evolution predicts that a complete fossil record would consist of lineages of organisms showing gradual change continuously over long periods of time....Unfortunately, the fossil record does not meet this expectation, for individual species of fossils are rarely connected to one another by known intermediate forms....known fossil species do indeed appear not to evolve even over millions of years.' - new scientist magazine, February the fourth, 1982, p.320
'No transitional forms are known between any of the major phyla of animals or plants' - processes of organic evolution p.147 - geneticist G.L.Stebbins
and finally
'the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another. Furthermore, species lasted for astoundingly long periods of time' - the new evolutionary timetable p.95
and that is as far as i am going in this discussion, for i am fed up arguing on this topic.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI agree that the fossil record does not show transitional forms where it is clear that one form became another. There is evidence from fossils that the earlier in time a fossil was formed the more basic the life forms were. Not enough evidence one way or another in my view.
An abundance of fossil remains that can be held and studied, for example, haha
Lol, you should know better than that you bad ol putty cat!
'evolution predicts that a complete fossil record would consist of lineages of organisms showing gradual change continuously over long periods of time....Unfortunately, the fossil record does not meet this e ...[text shortened]... nd that is as far as i am going in this discussion, for i am fed up arguing on this topic.
Originally posted by rwingettYou did not see evolution happen...and there is no physical evidence at all, its all theory, theory because there is an evil out there that is trying to blind people like yourself from seeing the truth...God could not offer people who do not have faith a place in his kingdom as it just wouldnt work...So this is your test here on Earth to shake yourself out of your negativity and open your mind, being a non believer is negativety, and there are no rewards in your negativity, your constant denial...
We see all the physical evidence that supports evolution. An abundance of fossil remains that can be held and studied, for example.
If you find the fossil remains of an angel then maybe you'd be able to build yourself a case.
so maybe you should just admit to yourself that your mind is closed to creation, being closed is being negative and you rather believe the opinions and views of other non believers....so we have a case of negativity upon negativity
To further blind you from the truth I suppose you believe men were once apes too even if you had not seen that eventuate either....but scientist told you so.
and if scientists told you that we are going to evolve back into Apes you would believe that too....
there is no evidence that evolution ever occured, you didnt see the any evidence of this at all..
the big bang theory you hear about was god saying let there be light!