middle east again...

**Clyde** · 05-02-2002

"If we do not have a soul, we can not have free will, since we would be entirely subject to the laws of physics. Since our brains are just a bunch of molecules bumping around, our thoughts actions etc. would be entirely subject to what they (the molecules) do. A soul (or spirit) is nescesarry effect small changes in them to modify our actions.

A rock is also a bunch of molecules. It has no soul, therefore it has no conciusness, and has no will.

btw, what is your definition of life, and do you believe in free will?"

No i don't believe in free-will, again it would break every law of physics known to man and has been shown experimentally not to exist.

Conciousness and the soul are to very separate subjects, a soul cannot be, conciousness most certainly is.

My definition of life is a self-replicating system capable of mutation.

**Clyde** · 05-02-2002

"Not any church I've been in!"

The Roman Catholic church has accepted evolution, the pope gave a speech on the subject reasonably recently.

**nvoigt** · 05-02-2002

>Atheists adhere to a rational belief system, they
>believe in what has evidence supporting it, and not in what that does not.

"You cannot prove your theory. Neither can I disprove it. Therefore you are wrong and I am right."

-Atheist.

This is what I call blind belief.

>It is a generally accepted method to consider that x does not exist
>until it is proven that is does.

This might be generally accepted for public math. But Atheists claim to be scientists, and scientific is proving something if you want to use it in further experiments as a fact. If you cannot prove something ( or prove it wrong ) you have no facts and no base to argue on.

Is it so hard to admit that we cannot know, prove or disprove God's existance, because the existance of god is simply out of our frame of reference ?

Unregistered · 05-02-2002

>It is a generally accepted method to consider that x does not exist
>until it is proven that is does.

x exists solely on whether it exists, not whether it is proven to exist

Unregistered · 05-02-2002

if there's a banana on my table and I don't know it's there, it's still there

**Malcar Morab** · 05-02-2002

" Evolution can only occur if one creature produces ("evolves into") another distinct species. If a rabbit becomes a beaver, that is evolution; but, if a red rose is bred to produce an orange rose, that is not evolution."

(taken from http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/09nsel02.htm)

Interesting thought, if all genes are the same, evolved from the similer cell, then why arn't plants evolving into animals or vice versa? From an evolutionists point of view this would seem logical, but I don't see it happening.

"Now tell me, where did 'Rover' come from?"

According to evolutionary theory?

You're telling me that 'Rover' is exactly the same type of creature that existed centuries ago?"

Mentally, or physically?

**Clyde** · 05-02-2002

"You cannot prove your theory. Neither can I disprove it. Therefore you are wrong and I am right."

-Atheist.

This is what I call blind belief."

Then you have a pretty weird definition, of blind belief. If there is no evidence for a theory nor can the theory be derived then it is irrational to believe in it.

Atheists do not believe in God for the same reason that they do not believe in elves: No evidence nor theory supports it.

**Clyde** · 05-02-2002

"x exists solely on whether it exists, not whether it is proven to exist"

Right... and how do you work out whether x exists or not.......... evidence.

"if there's a banana on my table and I don't know it's there, it's still there"

....... yeees... and..?

**Clyde** · 05-02-2002

"Evolution can only occur if one creature produces ("evolves into") another distinct species. If a rabbit becomes a beaver, that is evolution; but, if a red rose is bred to produce an orange rose, that is not evolution."

....... wrong, they are both evolution (though your second example is not really "proper" evolution since man is selectively breeding them). Though the former is some-times refered to macro-evolution and the later micro-evolution.

"Interesting thought, if all genes are the same, evolved from the similer cell, then why arn't plants evolving into animals or vice versa? From an evolutionists point of view this would seem logical, but I don't see it happening. "

..... that is nonsense, you have no idea what you are talking about. You simply do not understand evolution at all, I may end getting dragged into providing a brief explanation of some of the simpler evolutionary theory, but i do not wish to, any explanation I give would be better explained in a biology text book, in more detail and with many examples.

**Malcar Morab** · 05-02-2002

Is not evolution based on the theory that

"Evolution is cross-species change; it is the "evolving" of one creature into a totally different one. Evolutionists say that all evolution of life forms occurred either by "natural selection" and / or "mutations."

"Biogenesis is a term in biology that is derived from two Greek words meaning life and birth. According to the theory of biogenesis, living things descend only from living things. They cannot develop spontaneously from nonliving materials. Until comparatively recent times, scientists believed that certain tiny forms of life, such as bacteria, arose spontaneously from nonliving substances."—*"Biogenesis," in World Book Encyclopedia, p. B-242 (1972 edition). "

"Biological evolution is the change that species (kinds of living things) undergo over time. More precisely, it is the change in the gene pools of living populations of species which occurs over time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. A gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population."

This is what I understand evolution to be, I got these paragraphs off of secular websites so they must be right.

Unregistered · 05-02-2002

Originally posted by mike_k

Anything else would be self-fullfilling. (or self-negating) For example, if God predicted that in 4 BC (there was a slight error in calculation) someone named jesus would be born that woul be his son, a whole lot of people would be born with the name jesus!

And, of course, this amply illustrates the problems that arise when people decide to use prophecy as a proof. Either it has the weakness of being vague and therefore easily confuted or overly specific which would allow anyone to "fake" a fulfillment. But the problem for apologists is that this weakness of self fulfillment is even stronger when the prophecies are given as vague allusions rather than explicit predictions, because the claim for fulfillment can be a lot fuzzier. So I am not sure how your argument demonstrates anything but the opposite of what it is intended to prove.

In short, what your argument seems imply is that if there were a God who wanted to reveal himself it makes no sense to assume that he would use prophecies because of the inherent limitations you yourself point out. Therefore it might make a bit of sense to assume that any belief structure that requires fulfilled prophecies for proof is itself unreliable because it demands the acceptance of a flawed logical structure.

I truly believe that Christianity would reach a lot more people if it abandoned the "fulfilled prophecies" claim because such arguments demonstrate how deeply its adherents are willing to decieve themselves in order to be able to accept their worldview.

**Malcar Morab** · 05-02-2002

It's hard for people who havn't accepted Christ as their savior to understand, when you become a Christian you see the world differently, the blinders are off and you understand that life has a meaning, a purpose, and that I wasn't put here on this earth just by accident.

Please be careful about lumping all people who claim that they know God into all one group and call them Christians. The Klu Klux Klan claimed to be Christians, but they were not. Some new age beliefs say that they belive Jesus in't real, but they still beileve in God and therefore claim to be Christian.

For some more information, quotes from famous scientists about the study on evolution, rational scientific proof, there's a good site :http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Index.htm

Most people only hear one side, evolution is taught only in our schools now. People need to know that there is more than one way, and it is scientificly proven.

**Clyde** · 05-02-2002

"This is what I understand evolution to be, I got these paragraphs off of secular websites so they must be right"

...... find yourself a decent biology text book and read the section of evolution.

Biogenesis is a defunct theory, that is, no biologist today belives it to be true.

**seditee** · 05-02-2002

man did not evolve from a pig-like beast...mammal. we were delivered.

**Clyde** · 05-02-2002

"It's hard for people who havn't accepted Christ as their savior to understand, when you become a Christian you see the world differently, the blinders are off and you understand that life has a meaning, a purpose, and that I wasn't put here on this earth just by accident. "

The blinder are off! The blinders are OFF!!? I think not, the blinders are most certainly on, welded over your eyes in fact.

"Most people only hear one side, evolution is taught only in our schools now. People need to know that there is more than one way, and it is scientificly proven. "

There IS only one way, evolution is FACT, F-A-C-T, the alternative is ignorance, and fortunately as education improves ignorance of this particular topic decreases.

The idea that creation "science" is in ANY WAY scientific is such an utter fabrication i'm almost spitting blood! That site of yours like just about every creationist site mixes in ignorance with a few lies about scientific standards, a few misquotes from real scientists, a whole load of quotes from people who aren't actually scientists at all, and a few false rumours.

I'll give you a site that debunks every single creationist argument, its run by scientists:

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/default.htm

One of the numerous false arguments provided by your site is addressed specifically here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-solar.html

The other mis-truths about carbon-dating, the probability of life-forming the age of the universe, have all be answered a million times by scientists, the first site i gave has links to all the answers.

EDIT: Heavens above! the more I read from that site the more appauled I am at the ignorance expressed there! Some creationist sites seem to grasp how evolution works and then try and confuse people... this one...... they have no clue AT ALL:

"1 - Evolution Always Operates Upward, Not Downward - In other words, evolution always has positive effects. Yet, because it is supposedly totally random, half its effects would have to be negative"

- an example of the truly amazing ignorance displayed on that site. 99% of all mutations are "negative" in so far as they are not beneficial to the organism, BUT those genes get filtered out of the gene pool because the organisms with them are less likely to mate and hence pass the genes. Mutations that are benefical on the other hand will in all likelyhood spread throughout the entire population.

"2 - Evolution Operates Irreversibly - But scientists well-know that actions in nature can reverse and go in either direction"

- Not just ignorant but a plain LIE, you NEVER EVER EVER, get one species turning back into the species it used to be. Thats not to say that specific TRAITS cannot fluctuate with the environment.

"3 - Evolution Operates Only from Smaller to Bigger - This is another fantasy, which does not agree with nature "

A totally meaningless statement.

That was just 3 points I picked at random from that site!!

This one of the WORST offenders for propogating scientific ignorance i've found in a long time, they don't seem to know that evolution and the big-bang are completely independant unrelated theories, (they seem to think evolutionists came up with the big bang!?) they are spouting the early universe breaks the 2nd law nonsense, when in-fact, it does no such thing. LOL they even say that evolution breaks the 2nd law..... I guarantee that who ever wrote this stuff has no clue what entropy even is.

Oh that site is bad, BAD.