Originally posted by googlefudge
No, not a dare, or a challenge.

You don't understand.

To change me enough that I would worship anything or anyone including your god.
Would be to change me way way way way past the point where I was still
in any possible way still me.

[b]I would no longer exist, something else would exist instead.

I would thus be dead.


That 'born again' nonsense you mention doesn't change one person into another.[/b]

"That 'born again' nonsense you mention doesn't change one person into another."

Actually it does, it changes everything about you. Since you have not
gone through it I'd say your opinion on what it does and doesn't do really
does not mean much.

Originally posted by KellyJay
"Given that you don't understand logic or maths, or accept many well proven
scientific facts such as the age of the universe, or evolution, you are unlikely
to accept the proof. "

I have to accept evolution, I do! I just don't accept life evolving over time
from something simple to the diverse life we see today. I do not know how
old the universe i ...[text shortened]... read what you tell me and
ask questions only about those proofs. If you can answer them great!

So you have micro-evolution, that is to say that species can evolve but in general cannot speciate, but new and distinct species cannot emerge?

There is fairly good empirical evidence for this in drosophila, where they took some fruit flies and separated the colony into two groups which were exposed to two different environments and after 40 generations or so they were behaviourally distinct species. What I mean by that is that members of the two groups would show very strong preferences against mating with members of the other group.

The difficulty I have with this entire argument is that either the creationist account is empirically distinguishable from the scientific one, by which I mean the standard cosmological model plus evolution to explain the origin of species, or it is not. If they are empirically distinguishable then we have a test and may as well get on with making observations rather than engage in this rather fruitless debate. If they are not empirically distinguishable then really there is no point in criticising one another's points of view as nothing can be proven. Bearing in mind that scientists, and least the ones who are not creationists, simply will not accept the authority of scripture in scientific matters. And as the various creationists here have demonstrated for them empirical evidence is trumped by testament.

So there is a basic problem of world view. We are empiricists and you are idealists, in the metaphysical sense I don't mean political idealists, and never the twain shall meet.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Maybe that is what they mean by "born again".

Jesus said,

If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

(John 3:12 KJV)

Originally posted by DeepThought
So you have micro-evolution, that is to say that species can evolve but in general cannot speciate, but new and distinct species cannot emerge?

There is fairly good empirical evidence for this in drosophila, where they took some fruit flies and separated the colony into two groups which were exposed to two different environments and after 40 generatio ...[text shortened]... sts, in the metaphysical sense I don't mean political idealists, and never the twain shall meet.

The fruit flies, I image started as flies and ended as flies yes?
I don't see that as an issue, where I'd be impressed if you had a cat turn
into a dog or something along those lines.

I acknowledge the small changes but they never amount to much more than
that, at least as far as I know. You can have flies you just end up with
different flies, you can have dogs, but you just end up with different dogs,
you can have single cell life form....you still start and stop with what you
are looking at.

You can look at the fossil record everything seems to be folly formed!
So calling something proof due to evolution I'd say you are more than likely
just preaching to those that agree with you, you are not really proving
anything beyond that. Getting your own choir to stand up and cheer does
not mean those not sharing your faith/beliefs/evidence will be moved to
accept your "proof".

Originally posted by KellyJay
The fruit flies, I image started as flies and ended as flies yes?
I don't see that as an issue, where I'd be impressed if you had a cat turn
into a dog or something along those lines.

As always, your ignorance of basic biology is demonstrated. There are more species of fly, and they have more genetic variation than do mammals. Yet mammals would impress you more than flies.

You also demonstrate your failure to understand very basic aspects of evolution. One species never ever evolves into another already existing species. So although you might be impressed by it, evolution does not actually suggest that a cat would ever evolve into a dog. Instead, cats would evolve into a new creature that we would have to give a new name to. You would probably still deny it and simply say 'but its an animal, not a plant. Now what would really impress me is an animal evolving into a plant!'.

Originally posted by sonhouse
What would the religious bunch do then, if it were proven none of that crap exists?

What are you going to do when you find out there really is a God that created you and loved you so much He sacrificed His own son to pay your sin debt so you could have eternal life instead of nothing?

Originally posted by josephw
What are you going to do when you find out there really is a God that created you and loved you so much He sacrificed His own son to pay your sin debt so you could have eternal life instead of nothing?

I would ask him why he went to all that trouble of killing himself then apparently (according to some theists) totally failed to make any use of it. If he wants to give me eternal life, he will. There is no need for him to sacrifice himself, and no need for all the hide and seek games.

I might also ask him to explain the whole 'sin debt' thing because whenever I ask theists about it they run away.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I would ask him why he went to all that trouble of killing himself then apparently (according to some theists) totally failed to make any use of it. If he wants to give me eternal life, he will. There is no need for him to sacrifice himself, and no need for all the hide and seek games.

I might also ask him to explain the whole 'sin debt' thing because whenever I ask theists about it they run away.

"I might also ask him to explain the whole 'sin debt' thing..."

Sin is that thing, a condition of the heart, that separates man from his creator. According to the Word of God man was made to be united with God spiritually. According to the Word of God God is perfect, without flaw. Can you say that about yourself? Are you without flaw? Man was created without a single flaw, but chose to choose against the will of his creator creating a fatal flaw that results in death.

Quite simple don't you think? Easy to understand is it not? So easy in fact that even the most flawed person can understand it. Who can say they are without flaw? Only God is pure. So pure He is called holy.

"There is no need for him to sacrifice himself,.."

You're missing the point. God didn't 'need' to sacrifice Himself. We need to have our sin removed in order to reconnect spiritually with God. God is the only one qualified to do what needed to be done to remove the sin. God did it not because He needed to, but because He loves us.

Simple concepts even a child can comprehend. The choice is ours to trust in what God has done for us even while we were still flawed, only then can God give us the free gift of eternal life. Free to us, but at the cost of the life of God's only begotten son, Jesus.

Originally posted by josephw
Man was created without a single flaw, but chose to choose against the will of his creator creating a fatal flaw that results in death.

Funny how you use the word 'man' as a generic and then talk of 'chose to'. Which men in particular were involved in this decision? Why did it result in flaws in me?

Quite simple don't you think?
Quite vague.

Easy to understand is it not?
I sure hope so. That way you should be able to answer a few questions about it.

So easy in fact that even the most flawed person can understand it.
I must be beyond flawed.

God is the only one qualified to do what needed to be done to remove the sin. God did it not because He needed to, but because He loves us.
Why did it need to be done? What purpose did it serve?

Simple concepts even a child can comprehend.
I am not a child and not so easily taken in by hand waving. I want an actual explanation. 'Because of because' just doesn't cut it for us grownups.

Free to us, but at the cost of the life of God's only begotten son, Jesus.
A cost paid to whom by whom and using what monetary system? See if you can explain it in terms that adults can understand.

Originally posted by KellyJay
The fruit flies, I image started as flies and ended as flies yes?
I don't see that as an issue, where I'd be impressed if you had a cat turn
into a dog or something along those lines.

I acknowledge the small changes but they never amount to much more than
that, at least as far as I know. You can have flies you just end up with
different flies, you ca ...[text shortened]... s
not mean those not sharing your faith/beliefs/evidence will be moved to
accept your "proof".

You can look at the fossil record everything seems to be folly formed!

Whose folly was the formation of these fossils? 😉

So you accept micro-evolution and possibly some level of weak speciation but you do not accept, for example, that humans and chimps had a common ancestor, since for one thing in your cosmology there simply hasn't been enough time.

Suppose though that there had been enough time, so I'm asking you to consider what is in your view a counter-factual scenario, do you think that it is possible, had there been enough time, for, say, dogs and cats to evolve from a common ancestor?

Originally posted by DeepThought

You can look at the fossil record everything seems to be folly formed!

Whose folly was the formation of these fossils? 😉

So you accept micro-evolution and possibly some level of weak speciation but you do not accept, for example, that humans and chimps had a common ancestor, since for one thing in your cosmology there simply hasn't bee ...[text shortened]... possible, had there been enough time, for, say, dogs and cats to evolve from a common ancestor?

There will never be enough time because time does not create. It requires a designer and creator God to create in the image of God. There is no time unless God creates it. 😏

HalleluYah !!! Praise the LORD! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Originally posted by DeepThought

You can look at the fossil record everything seems to be folly formed!

Whose folly was the formation of these fossils? 😉

So you accept micro-evolution and possibly some level of weak speciation but you do not accept, for example, that humans and chimps had a common ancestor, since for one thing in your cosmology there simply hasn't bee ...[text shortened]... possible, had there been enough time, for, say, dogs and cats to evolve from a common ancestor?

If chimps and humans had a common ancestor and the change is ever so
slow where are of those creatures that between one species and the last
one? You seen a change on that scale or have all the changes you seen like
the ones we just talked about where you start with flies and you end with
flies?

Time isn't the issue with me, I'll grant you all the time you want, where you
will fail is not time, but everything that is required to be there, be there in
the proper quantities, be there without anything hindering the proper
connections, and a host of other issues as in the right environment and so
on. If we were talking about a lab experiment all the ingredients mixed into
the proper tube in the right setting, in the right sequence, and on an on.

Even after all of that maintaining, feeding, having the next generation show
up without falling apart is a long string of things that have to just happen
without fail or it all dies. Time isn't an issue with me, windows of
opportunities are much larger where it is all just right before something
changes and all bets are off.

Originally posted by twhitehead
As always, your ignorance of basic biology is demonstrated. There are more species of fly, and they have more genetic variation than do mammals. Yet mammals would impress you more than flies.

You also demonstrate your failure to understand very basic aspects of evolution. One species never ever evolves into another already existing species. So although ...[text shortened]... s an animal, not a plant. Now what would really impress me is an animal evolving into a plant!'.

You are ignorant of Darwin's theory of evolution.

http://www.truenews.org/Creation_vs_Evolution/origin_of_life.html

Originally posted by Suzianne
I don't have the slightest farking clue what your life is like. I know nothing about it. But I do know that opening your eyes to truth WILL make it better. It IS kind of a no-brainer. 🙂

You cannot possibly KNOW all that. You can believe and so forth but you are deluding yourself if you think you KNOW all that.

Originally posted by KellyJay
If chimps and humans had a common ancestor and the change is ever so
slow where are of those creatures that between one species and the last
one?

There is a fairly good fossil record of human and chimp ancestry all the way back to a common ancestor. Look it up.

Even after all of that maintaining, feeding, having the next generation show
up without falling apart is a long string of things that have to just happen
without fail or it all dies.
And yet we see it happening all around us all the time. Life isn't going extinct you know.

Time isn't an issue with me, windows of opportunities are much larger where it is all just right before something changes and all bets are off.
The issue with you is nothing more than ignorance of biology. Ignorance however is not evidence that a scientific theory is incorrect.