Evolution V Religion

[Bum Crack]

As for the accepting god part why is it that some of the most devout christians insist on preaching to people who show no interest in their beliefs?

Simple, the Bible instructs them to do so.

Shut up you bible basher

[nuggety goodness]

And you believe that there is in no way any chance of creative editing?

The people collating this book as the bible would not have released it if it had conflicting stories.

Do you think we will hear all versions of the current Rann scandal? no, we will only receive the stories from both sides that support their cases!

As for the accepting god part why is it that some of the most devout christians insist on preaching to people who show no interest in their beliefs?

"How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believ in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall theyhear without a preacher" Romans 10:14

[Zelezny Chucks]

As for the accepting god part why is it that some of the most devout christians insist on preaching to people who show no interest in their beliefs?

Simple, the Bible instructs them to do so.

As NG said "God loves us but He can't make us love Him..."

Seems a bit contradictory to me. They talk about "finding" god yet don't allow people to come to their own understanding of what may be out there.

For the record I'm agnostic, I'd say there has to be something more but I'm pretty confident that organised religion hasn't nailed it yet.

[silicone skyline]

Well, different people find different ways of "finding God."

The evangelising work is just one.

Some religions put more emphasis on it than others.

[The Yetti]

As for the accepting god part why is it that some of the most devout christians insist on preaching to people who show no interest in their beliefs?

Simple, the Bible instructs them to do so.

As NG said "God loves us but He can't make us love Him..."

Seems a bit contradictory to me. They talk about "finding" god yet don't allow people to come to their own understanding of what may be out there.

For the record I'm agnostic, I'd say there has to be something more but I'm pretty confident that organised religion hasn't nailed it yet.

Hey ZC what is the difference between an agnostic and an athiest......I just read the dictionary.

[nuggety goodness]

As for the accepting god part why is it that some of the most devout christians insist on preaching to people who show no interest in their beliefs?

Simple, the Bible instructs them to do so.

As NG said "God loves us but He can't make us love Him..."

Seems a bit contradictory to me. They talk about "finding" god yet don't allow people to come to their own understanding of what may be out there.

For the record I'm agnostic, I'd say there has to be something more but I'm pretty confident that organised religion hasn't nailed it yet.

there are things you must be taught, it's kinda like school. when you start you have no idea really what God is all about but you keep going and put yourself around people who have some depth of knowledge you pick it up. when you first start school you don't pick up a trigonometry text and understand it...

[Dogwatcher]

As for the accepting god part why is it that some of the most devout christians insist on preaching to people who show no interest in their beliefs?

Simple, the Bible instructs them to do so.

As NG said "God loves us but He can't make us love Him..."

Seems a bit contradictory to me. They talk about "finding" god yet don't allow people to come to their own understanding of what may be out there.

For the record I'm agnostic, I'd say there has to be something more but I'm pretty confident that organised religion hasn't nailed it yet.

Hey ZC what is the difference between an agnostic and an athiest......I just read the dictionary.

An agnostic has a belief that there is a supreme being but has not found it. They are not ruling out that there is a God.

An atheist has no belief in god or a higher power.

I'm an agnostic.

[silicone skyline]

I remember when I was agnostic.

Now I'm nostalgic.

[Zelezny Chucks]

In school what subjects did you learn more in? The ones you chose to do and enjoyed or the ones you were forced to do and didn't want to?

Atheist - denies there is a god.

Agnotic - sceptical about it but doesn't deny it

If there is a God which Religion is right or are they all right?

[nuggety goodness]

In school what subjects did you learn more in? The ones you chose to do and enjoyed or the ones you were forced to do and didn't want to?

If there is a God which Religion is right or are they all right?

of course, but as i said before, first the seed must be planted... no-one is forced to do anything, i preach all the time but i can't change anyone, only God can. and He only does it when we open up to Him...

RE religion, you tell me? Christian, Muslim, Mormon, JW, the list goes on, where do they all base their teachings from?

[Pseudo]

of course, but as i said before, first the seed must be planted...

Re-writing biology textbooks is a particularly underhanded way of planting that seed. Is it necessary to undermine the education system and regress science back into the dark ages in order to spread the word?

(Anyone else remember the original point of this thread?)

[nuggety goodness]

of course, but as i said before, first the seed must be planted...

Re-writing biology textbooks is a particularly underhanded way of planting that seed. Is it necessary to undermine the education system and regress science back into the dark ages in order to spread the word?

(Anyone else remember the original point of this thread?)

i don't suggest a total re-write of biology texts, Science plays a major part in us understanding what is happening and how it is happening. however why and the origins of it are what i am disputing.

Evolution is all branded as one when there are something like 7 different forms of it. the transmutation of species i don't agree with and the fact that we are told the Earth is millions of years old when it is not necessarily proven sufficiently i also have issues with...

[Zelezny Chucks]

of course, but as i said before, first the seed must be planted...

Re-writing biology textbooks is a particularly underhanded way of planting that seed. Is it necessary to undermine the education system and regress science back into the dark ages in order to spread the word?

(Anyone else remember the original point of this thread?)

The thread has evolved Pseudo deal with it!!

Or maybe I could preach to you how much better it is now that it's changed and then you will see it is for the best!!

[Pseudo]

i don't suggest a total re-write of biology texts, Science plays a major part in us understanding what is happening and how it is happening. however why and the origins of it are what i am disputing.

This is philosophy, not science, and has no place in a science classroom.

[Zelezny Chucks]

Man was created in god's image. Does that mean God is Encino Man??

Science has proven we have descendants who were vastly different physically so how does Christianity explain that?

[nuggety goodness]

Man was created in god's image. Does that mean God is Encino Man??

Science has proven we have descendants who were vastly different physically so how does Christianity explain that?

Encino Man? no idea...

and Science hasn't proven that at all... is this the we come from Monkeys thing?

[nuggety goodness]

i don't suggest a total re-write of biology texts, Science plays a major part in us understanding what is happening and how it is happening. however why and the origins of it are what i am disputing.

This is philosophy, not science, and has no place in a science classroom.

so it's perfectly fine to teach the world 'facts' that aren't necessarily true? is that not philosophy?

science cannot explain life although it tries to, school text books have the big bang theory in them which is based on assumptions and estimations, not scientific evidence, from there they go through the 'source of life' being a primordial soup from which single celled life forms developed and over the course of time that single celled organism 'evolved' into a fish, into a reptile, into a mammal etc and all life forms, great and small started off as this single celled organism.

[Zelezny Chucks]

Man was created in god's image. Does that mean God is Encino Man??

Science has proven we have descendants who were vastly different physically so how does Christianity explain that?

Encino Man? no idea...

and Science hasn't proven that at all... is this the we come from Monkeys thing?

No, it's the Australopithicus, Homo Erectus etc etc thing.

I guess my question is how can you blindly believe something that has so many contradictions and misinterpretation throughout its teachings?

If you truly believe in God, as you say then what you do in life doesn't matter, as if you truthfully and honestly repent all your sins on your deathbed you will be accepted into heaven as if you had lived your life as a priest*

*used for irony.

[nuggety goodness]

Man was created in god's image. Does that mean God is Encino Man??

Science has proven we have descendants who were vastly different physically so how does Christianity explain that?

Encino Man? no idea...

and Science hasn't proven that at all... is this the we come from Monkeys thing?

No, it's the Australopithicus, Homo Erectus etc etc thing.

I guess my question is how can you blindly believe something that has so many contradictions and misinterpretation throughout its teachings?

If you truly believe in God, as you say then what you do in life doesn't matter, as if you truthfully and honestly repent all your sins on your deathbed you will be accepted into heaven as if you had lived your life as a priest*

*used for irony.

firstly, the Australopethicus has similar or closely related genetics, they are not necessarily our descendants, we have very similar DNA to pigs too.....

secondly, very few people get a deathbed, no-one is guaranteed tomorrow ZC... my grandmother died of a heart attack new years eve 06, no deathbed. one of my mates from High School had a car accident, died instantly. my wife's grandfather is currently in ICU, he had 2 major heart attacks 2 Saturday's ago and has not come to consciousness since. he is still alive, but being supported by machines and looks to have extensive brain damage due to the lack of oxygen being circulated...

thirdly, identify the misinterpretations and contradictions in the bible. that is a regularly used arguement that has no substance to it...

[Pseudo]

science cannot explain life although it tries to,

Find a copy of Steven Levy's "Artificial Life". Turn to the chapter "God's Heart", read from page 131 (in my edition anyway). This passage describes an experiment in which amino acids were spontaneously synthesised from raw materials under conditions similar to those hypothesised in primordial Earth. Nothing more complex than amino acids have yet been synthesised, but consider that if the basic building blocks of life can spotaneously form over a few days in a laboratory, then Mother Nature (who has had far more time and a far more extensive laboratory) could eventually spontaneously synthesise ever more complex molecules, culminating in raw RNA. Much of the rest of that chapter deals with computer models of how such greater synthesis could happen. This demonstrates that the spontaneous creation of life is at least possible. Further research might deepen our understanding of the process - but not if the biological sciences are hijacked by people who want to believe that a metaphorical story about the Earth's creation is in fact literal truth.

school text books have the big bang theory in them which is based on assumptions and estimations, not scientific evidence,

Complete and utter BULLDUST. The big bang has been supported by several observations. One is the measurable background radiation of the universe. Turn on an analogue television set and tune it to a free channel; a significant amount of what you see on the screen is due to the set picking up this background radiation. Current models of the universe's creation predict the existence of such radiation. A second observation is obtained from radio telescopes trained upon distant galaxies. The light from these galaxies is heavily shifted towards the low-frequency end of the spectrum. This is a manifestation of the well-known Doppler shift, demonstrating that distant galaxies are receding at a very high velocity. This implies that at one time the various galaxies must have been close together: at the Big Bang.

That's the scientific method at work: form a theory, find evidence which supports that theory - or falsifies it. Contrast this with the philosophical method, which argues forwards from assumptions to extend knowledge. Contrast both methods with the religious model of thought: See something which you don't understand, and postulate the workings of an imaginary deity to account for it. This God is a "God of the gaps", a deity whose name is invoked in order to cover up ignorance.

How difficult would it be for the religious fundies to maintain the belief that God created the universe, and the laws which govern it, then stood back to watch its beauty evolve?