He wouldn't be so immersed into Christianity. Especially this bizarre and aggressive style of Christianity. Even odder apparently has parents were not the most religious and it was him, himself that went into this religious madness into his teen years and converted his sister later on. And the obsession continues well into his adulthood.
I wonder what lead to this unusual religious obsession? Some type of mental illness.
A lot of people rebel against their parents when they hit their teenage years. Maybe there are some issues there.
shareWhat is so radical about his faith? He believes what he holds true and lives it.
Your post is viscerally offensive.
He claims to be able to disprove evolution with his "Crocoduck" argument which ironically shows that he doesn't even understand evolution. He claims a transitional form goes as follows: Crocodile gives birth to Crocoduck --> Crockoduck gives birth to duck. The theory of evolution doesn't say that and no scientists say that either. Evolution says that species go through very small changes through time, from generation to generation it doesn't really seem to be any different but compound that effect over millions of years and you have an entirely different species. Then environmental factors select which members of a species are able to live and which ones die (example: in a snowy environment the white rabbits are able to blend in with their environment and hide from predators while the black rabbits are easily spotted and eaten). Evolution is as close to scientific fact as you can get and the fact that he thinks that he's the one who has proof that evolution is false and that he's smarter than every geologist, paleontologist and biologist in the scientific community is insultingly arrogant. He doesn't know what he's talking about, he's a joke.
The thing is there is no reason to believe that there is a god up there, it has never been demonstrated that he exists and the idea of his existence contradicts everything we know about the natural world.
He's probably not the brightest bulb.
shareHe’s extreme to say the least. He strikes me as one of these “personal responsibility” types who thinks they can get on their knees and beg a celestial being to fix everything for them.
sharePraying to a celestial being to fix everything isn't even "personal responsibility" that's saying that God will just solve all of your problems.
I have no problem with personal responsibility but I have a problem with his sanctimonious, arrogant attitude and that he doesn't even understand the theory that he attacks.
That’s what I’m saying. They preach personal responsibility but want God to fix everything for them. The irony of it all.
shareI see what you're saying. And yeah I never really understood the whole "if you believe in God you go to heaven, if you don't believe in God you go to hell" First of all:
1) That would mean like 2/3 of the world's population is going to hell (including all of the Jews executed or survived the Holocaust)
2) That's not a fair system because God has never revealed himself or even given people a reason to believe in him
3) That's an immoral system because he's basically saying "worship me blindly without any evidence that I even exist and if you dare to question this I will torture you forever"
4) By that system if someone is a rapist and a murderer and rapes, tortures and kills a little girl who had never been saved by this system the little girl would go to hell, then the rapist asks for forgiveness, gets saved and he gets to go to heaven.
That's an understatement, again he doesn't even understand the theory that he's attacking. And the scientists that he claims to know more than are a lot smarter than he is.
shareEven as someone who comprehends evolution, it was an eye opening concept when I read years ago that an evolved species is still everything its ancestors were.
Like, life started as electrochemical reactions. We are still that. Then came single cells. We are still made of single cells and grow from single cells in the womb. Then came multicellular life... We are still that, in fact reproduction requires two separate cells combining to kick off the multicellular growth. Every stage of development, we still are. More recently, we are still apes. Evolution is layers of development, and branching lineages. There is no "change" from one life form to another.
You can delineate evolutionary branches by comparing what separate life forms share. Humans and jellyfish only share being multicellular, so that branch off was a very long time ago. In fact it's arguable that jellyfish are an advanced colony organism, and not even truly multicellular.
The point is it's insulting that he seems to think that he knows more than all of the PhD's on the planet and that he is able to debunk all of evolution when he doesn't even know what evolution says. That and the fact that his "evidence" basically boils down to "the world is so perfect, it had to have been created"
All life evolved from the first cells created by abiogenesis through chemical reactions in the early Earth's atmosphere (or at least the Miller-Urey experiment proves that it's possible for the gases in the early Earth atmosphere to produce organic compounds such as amino acids, not that it without a shadow of a doubt happened), then over billions of years DNA mutated, organisms started reproducing sexually (which means genetic diversity as each parent can only donate one allele from each trait and it's completely random) and Natural Selection weeded out the organisms that did not have favorable adaptations. A donkey never gave birth to a gorilla as Kirk seems to think
I'm also sick of the "I don't see how it could possibly be evolution so therefore it's God" argument. Not understanding the other side doesn't prove your side.
That and the fact that his "evidence" basically boils down to "the world is so perfect, it had to have been created"
And the thing is the world isn't perfect, there are volcanic eruptions emitting all kinds of toxic gases, there are earthquakes and tsunamis, over 70% of the world is covered by water and we can't even live there. By his logic God is eternal so why can't matter and energy be eternal? There was a debate where he and his buddy Ray Comfort were debating 2 atheists and they didn't challenge him on this point and I thought it was a missed opportunity.
Kirk Cameron simply cherry picks the "evidence" that suits his world view and that isn't how science works. In science you use the evidence to guide you to the conclusion. Kirk has started with his conclusion and he is just picking and choosing what evidence he wants to consider valid.
In today's society fortunately it doesn't seem to be the Christians that are violent (except for the Westboro Baptist Church Cult), I am just sick and tired of being preached to and having comments such as "I feel so sorry for you that you haven't found Christ", "I'll pray for you", "God has thrown you a life preserver, reach out and take it", etc., etc. I'm sick of self righteous, sanctimonious and quick frankly insultingly ignorant attitudes such as those.
[deleted]
The theory that you're referring to as "Crocoduck" was advocated by evolutionists under the name "Punctuated Equilibrium" and yes, it states that species remain stable over a long course of time and that sudden changes in that species allow for the "gaps" in the fossil record. It's basically fantasy with no scientific basis, so he's not off the mark entirely with his belief. Just because a biologist somewhere makes a statement, that doesn't make their statement a "fact" of science. The normal go-to approach is the "Scientific Method", which is impossible to use to prove/disprove Darwinian Evolution (Macro Evolution). Most Christians/Catholics/Protestants/Mormons believe Micro Evolution, which are minor changes to species over time, not wholesale changes from one species to another. Example - a species of shark from the Miocene gets smaller over time as climate, ocean stocks, currents and geological events change the environment. That's Micro Evolution and it's easily seen in the fossil record. A shark from the Miocene changing to a completely different aquatic animal or land-based animal over the same period, would be an example of Macro Evolution and such an example is NO WHERE in the fossil record.
Bottom line, it's entirely your choice to believe in a God or not, just like it's Kirk Cameron's choice to believe in a God and in the intelligent design of the world. He's no more uneducated in professing that God created the world, as is an atheistic scientist who claims that random events shaped everything, including every species on the planet. Each viewpoint is no more "fantastic" in it's claims than the other. Just saying.
Actually it isn't, The Crocoduck argument that Kirk believes that scientists believe says that a Crocidile will give birth to Crocoduck which will then give birth to duck, there is not a single scientist who thinks that, Punctuated Equilibrium still takes hundreds to thousands of years (punctuated equilibrium in no way shape or form suggested a "crockoduck"). You and Kirk both seem to think that an organism will give birth to a completely new species and it takes a lot longer than that. I don't think you quite understand the scope of Earth's History, when we say short amounts of time that can still be millions of years which is a drop in the bucket in comparison to the actual age of the Earth. I never said that Evolution and scientific theory was based off the statement of one scientist, it has to be repeatedly tested, repeatedly confirmed and universally accepted by people who actually know what they're talking about (not people like Kirk).
OK in science there really isn't any such thing as "fact", we go where the evidence takes us and the evidence is so strong for evolution and an old Earth (billions of years) that it is as close to fact as it can possibly get but we still leave the door open for new evidence and when that evidence arrives we will modify our way of thinking. That is a lot different from the radical Christian view which says "what we thought thousands of years ago is fact no question about it, if you even dare to question it it is blasphemous and you're going to hell" (I realize that's an extreme view of Christianity but there are people out there who think that). Um you do realize that the Miocene was a relatively recent span of geologic time right? Evolution is a lot like continental drift, from year to year the Earth's landmasses look the same (much like how from generation to generation parents and offspring look like the same organism) but in reality there is a very small difference and when that difference is compounded over millions of years it changes everything.
Of course it's Kirk Cameron's choice to believe in God and that is fine, I realize it's the dominant world religion but Kirk Cameron claims to be able to turn all of science on its head and again he doesn't understand it and my guess is he doesn't want to understand it. Kirk has started with his conclusion and he just cherry picks the evidence he wants to count and just discard all of the evidence that refutes his world view. He has a pompous, arrogant attitude and that is why he gets so much criticism.
Your average, every day Christian doesn't go out into the public arena and claim that they are able to turn all of science on its head with evidence that only proves that they don't know what they're talking about.
The difference between science and religion is science has evidence to back it up and there is a reason to believe it, religion has no evidence to back it up and the only reason to believe it is because it makes you feel good.
A Christian viewpoint about the nature and state of existence is just as valid as an evolutionary viewpoint. There is no more "evidence" that supports evolution over creation. That's fact. I can point out moments when evolutionary theories have been proven wrong by the actual Scientific Method. Take Doctor Alan Feduccia, Professor Emeritus of Avian Evolution and Paleontology at the University of North Carolina. He conducted laboratory studies on the embryonic development of modern birds (chickens, ostriches) and compared them to fossilized Theropod dino eggs in various states of growth. His research was pretty telling. The way the digits on the hands of bird embryos and Theropod dino embryos developed is not the same. Doctor Feduccia concluded that this means birds are not the ancestors of Theropod dinos, although he did reiterate that he believes they have a common ancestor. Having a common ancestor is an example of Micro Evolution, not Macro Evolution. Yet for whatever reason, certain schools of thought have ignored his actual proof and keep pushing the myth of birds having evolved from Theropod dinos. Didn't happen, based on his work.
We can debate back and forth about what is "science" but I respect your viewpoint. We can likely agree on some things but disagree on others. I personally don't believe (and the data results from NASA missions to Mercury, Jupiter and Saturn) in a 4.5 billion year old universe and solar system. There's no way Mercury has a magnetic field, Titan still has it's atmosphere or Enceladus is warm enough to shoot jets of water into space if any of those substantially smaller worlds are 4.5 billion years old. Oh, people will try to explain the data away or make it fit into the 4.5 billion year timeline but it's not accurate given what we know now, nor is it honest.
Again I don't think you fully grasp what science is all about. No law or theory states that "this is true 100% there is no way it's not true, you must blindly accept this". Science has years and years (maybe decades) of study and research behind it. Is it perfect? Of course not, there have been countless hypotheses that have either been modified or thrown out completely, our viewpoint of the universe is constantly evolving (a few centuries ago it was universally accepted that the Earth was the center of the solar system). The point is we go where the evidence takes us and when it needs to be modified it is. At this current point all signs are pointing to an old universe (and by old I mean billions of years), and an old Earth (again billions of years), and it's also pointing to life started out as a simple one celled organism and over billions of years (3.8 billion approximately) it's offspring constantly evolved and changed and through the process of evolution/natural selection we have the dynamic biosphere that we have today. You seem to think that just because scientists have thrown out ideas or that some experiments/studies (and I have not read the study you are referring to but even if I take your word for it it doesn't help your case) have been invalid that that discredits all of science and it doesn't, it actually shows that science has very high standards and for something to be universally accepted it has to stand up to very high scrutiny (which evolution has).
At this present moment all signs point to evolution, when there is new evidence we will modify our way of thinking about the universe. The difference once again is that evolution has actual experimentation and repeated confirmation about it while all world religions do not. There is no agenda to convince everyone the Earth is 4.56 billion years old, that is where the radiometric dating has lead us to. Is it older? Quite possibly and when there is evidence we will correct ourselves. The point is there is evidence that leads to an old Earth, there is ZERO evidence that the Earth is thousands of years old and that
I grasp science just fine but it's not the only school of study that's been happening for "years and years (maybe decades)" as you put it. Religion and Philosophy have been addressing the same questions nearly as long, perhaps longer. You can't prove/disprove something came from nothing (i.e.-Religion) anymore than you can prove/disprove everything came from slime on a rock billions upon billions of years ago (i.e.-Macro Evolution).
Let's look at it this way. Since all life on planet Earth has a certain percentage of genetic material in common, that gives us 1 definitive conclusion with 2 possible answers.
Conclusion: Every form of life came from the same source.
Answers: That source was either accidental or deliberate.
Now you're free to believe whichever answer you wish, it doesn't make one answer any less valid than the other answer. It doesn't make one side's points more true than the other.
Science uses theory to fill in gaps where proof doesn't exist. Religion uses faith to fill in those gaps.
I don't think you understand science at all. Religion and Philosophy are not reliable pathways to truth because they do not rely on logic, reason or evidence. Again science does not say that theories and laws are 100% proven or 100% fact. We have simulated the Early Earth's Atmosphere in a laboratory (Miller Urey Experiment) and we know that it is possible for the Early Earth Gases to form organic compounds which very well could have created the first unicellular organisms. The Precambrian is very hard to trace fossils because most of the life had soft bodies or were very primitive but after the Cambrian Explosion we have a fairly reliable fossil record as that was a period when life began to evolve and developed hard parts. the thing is scientists are OK with saying "I don't know" and just because they don't know everything doesn't mean that they don't know anything (which is what our pal Eric Hovind would have you believe). Evolution has so much testing and confirmation behind it that from our perspective it is as close to fact as it can get so for the time being (despite the fossil record not being completely intact) we treat it as fact until contradictory evidence comes along later, again science always opens the door for theories/laws to be modified or thrown out if necessary, it encourages asking questions, it encourages critical thinking, it encourages people to question the status quo and collect new evidence/ideas about the natural world. Religion doesn't do that, religion says if you question God or don't love him enough you are going to burn in hell and be tortured for eternity so toe the line and shut up. Society does not progress with that kind of attitude.
Evolution is not an accident, there is a reason why some life forms lived on and some died off and it all comes down to adaptation and environmental conditions. When the Earth's environment changes the organisms that have favorable adaptations to survive in the new environment live on while the ones with unfavorable adaptations die off again Rabbits in a snowy environment --> White ones live, black ones die.
You keep making the same argument - that I don't understand science - while making minor adjustments to your definition of science. Real "science" is proven, using the Scientific Method. All else is theory and speculation, based off what we can't prove, or hope is right. Theory does not equate fact.
For the record, I've listened to some of Dr. Hovind's lectures and he makes a good case. He takes some scientist to task for claiming that "they know" the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, when they know no such thing. The accepted timeline they once advocated (when I was in 3rd grade), was that the Earth was several millions of years old. Then as decades went by, it got revised up to hundreds of millions, 1 billion years old, 2-3 billion years old and now sits at the latest figure of 4.5 billion. And all these timeline upgrades come from the science clique that mocks religious people for believing the Earth is only hundreds of thousands of years old. At least the religious people are consistent.
As to the cause of Christianity, it's a religion about redemption from sin and the consequences of having sin in your life. Free will is still an aspect of Christianity. You can follow it's teachings or not. Again, it's a matter of what you believe in. I think Christianity is attacked unfairly, as every major religion believes in some sort of creation event.
And how is the fossil record not complete? Is it because the fossil record doesn't prove whole species evolution, from one specific form to another specific form? If transitional creatures existed, we should find abundant fossil evidence of them. They simply aren't there. Interestingly, in the same strata of ground where they dig up Cretaceous dinosaur bones, they also find the bones of modern day crocodiles and turtles. Why is that so? Shouldn't everything have been evolving, not just dinosaurs?
Not trying to flame, only pointing out some gaping holes in the logic of Macro Evolution. With what we have now [in terms of actual evidence], Macro Evolution did not happen.
I keep making the argument that you don't understand science because you keep demonstrating that you don't understand science. Because studies and theories get refined or thrown out that doesn't invalidate the scientific method, what it shows that scientists are constantly searching for better ideas and more accurate information and if anything that shows why the scientific method is a valid system. It goes by the evidence and it goes by the facts. And again in science experiments and studies and research do not "prove" anything 100% what they do is they provide us with enough evidence and data for us to accept it to be true but it always leaves open the possibility that it can be modified or thrown out all together, religion doesn't do that, religion says that what was accepted 2000+ years ago is without any question fact and if you dare question it you are going to hell. It uses fear and guilt to get people to believe things that are logically absurd, like the entire world flooding. You can say Christianity is about freewill but it isn’t, if you don’t think a certain way you burn in hell and under Christianity approximately two thirds of the worlds population is going to hell, that is evil. Evolution is not "speculation", this isn't something that we just pulled out of thin air, this has years of testing and repeated confirmation, the evidence is so strong that we currently accept it to be true and we treat it like it's true.
Dr. Hovind??? LOL thanks for the laugh (by the way I think you have Kent and Eric Hovind confused, Kent Hovind has a degree from Patriot University (which isn't even accredited) in Christian Education which doesn't exactly make him an authority in any kind of scientific field). I have listened to the guy and all he does is play word games with people, he baits people into contradicting themselves and his way of debating is incredibly childish and asinine. The only way to talk to him is to bring yourself down to his level and most intelligent people aren't willing to do that. He says that if you don't know everything then your entire line of thinking is flawed and invalid but since God knows everything then that means Christianity is true. That entire statement is asinine and illogical and you are never going to get closer to the truth is you listen to that moron. Again no one is saying that they "know" the Earth is 4.56 billion years old, it is the currently accepted age however because by radiometric dating the oldest evidence ever found on Earth dates back to that time period. There is absolutely nothing to suggest it's only a few thousand years old. There are rocks all over the place that date back to billions of years, there is no logical reason for believe the Earth is 4-6000 years old, there are plenty of reasons to believe that it is billions of years old. Tell me this if the Earth is only a few thousand years old why do we find layers of strata that date back to hundreds of millions to billions of years? Why do we never find a dinosaur fossil in a rock layer younger than 65 million years old? (I'm assuming you believe dinosaurs and humans coexisted and that dinosaurs are actually some biblical creature?) Again that is the currently accepted scientific idea, when new evidence comes along we will refine it but now the ball is in your court and its up to you to refute it.
At least religious people are consistent??? Yeah they are consistently believing things that have no basis in reality
Your mantra of "you don't understand science" is the play on words to try and dismiss your opponent, because you equate acceptance of your arguments as understanding of science. It's not. You're using a semantic ploy. It doesn't make your point. I've given you examples that you either ignore or denigrate because you don't like the source of those examples (Kent Hovind) or because they chip away at your argument. Macro Evolution does not use the Scientific Method. There is no observation and conclusion of observation because the Macro Evolutionist explains away everything by claiming "these processes take millions and millions of year," which renders observation (a key component of the Scientific Method) moot. You can claim something to be "science" all you want, yet unless it is proven to be science, it's only scientific speculation based on what little we know and NOT scientific fact. Oh and there are plenty of people who assert the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, names like Richard Dawkins and Phil Plait come to mind. Most of the JPL scientist I've watched online make the same assertion. The source of these assertions is due to Radiometric Dating of rocks they've found on the Earth. Okay, let's say they are right and 4.5 billion in the right number. They then go and say the age of the Universe is 4.5 billion (Plait actually claims it's around 12 billion) because of the rocks we found on Earth. That's known as Circular Logic or Circular Reasoning. One thing doesn't prove the other, so even IF the Earth were 4.5 billion years old, making claims that the Universe is the same age is quite a stretch. That's an example where science drifts into the wishful thinking realm.
I love science. It was my second favorite course study in school, after history. It's a self-correcting field, yet science doesn't have all the answers. Christianity is a faith. It aspires to answer deeper issues about the moral and spiritual world.
Thank you for the debate. God bless!
No my mantra of you don't understand science is my conclusion based on your responses. I have a reason to believe you don't understand science because you have demonstrated that you don't understand science. What examples have I ignored? Go back and read my posts and there are plenty of examples I have given you that you have ignored. I debunked your argument about crocodiles and turtles and you didn't even address it. Do you even know what Patriot University is? I have seen the pictures it's pretty much a trailer, it is an unaccredited university (meaning the diplomas are basically toilet paper) and even if it was a legit university Kent Hovind's degree is in Christian Education which doesn't make him an authority in the field of science, and by the way I was talking about Eric Hovind.
Macro-Evolution is based on decades of observation and repeated confirmation, it does use the scientific method, again it's not something we just pulled out of our butts. We have traced fossils back billions of years, we have observed the changes to transitional formed over eons and the traces repeatedly confirm macro-evolution (and I provided countless examples of macroevolution which you just ignored). The dates are also always consistent, we have determined which time periods each organism has lived in and all of the strata we have found have always had the same organisms in the same time period. Like I said we have never found a trilobite mixed in with a T-Rex. Macro-Evolution is accepted to be fact, the problem is you are so dead set in your unverifiable beliefs which have no basis in reality that you are intentionally trying to discredit anything that might contradict it. That is another reason why I said you don't understand science. A scientist wants to find the most accurate theory, a scientist uses the data and the observations to find the conclusion that best fits the data, you want the conclusion to be god so you are discrediting any contradictory evidence while counting the evidence that might somehow fit your world view. You are frustratingly
Denigrating my source material isn't the same thing as debunking.
You're fine though, believe what you wish, based on what you know. I shall believe what I wish, based on what I know.
I did debunk your source material. You claimed Kent Hovind was a doctor and Patriot University is a trailer which isn't even accredited. He's not a doctor and even if he was his "degree" is in Christian Education. If I want to know what bible verses say what I will turn to Kent Hovind, if I want to know more about science Kent Hovind is the last person I would ever turn to, I am going to trust the USGS, NASA, etc. instead. Also do some research on Clair Cameron Patterson in 1956 he used lead-uranium isotopes to approximate the age of the Earth at about 4.55 billion years which is essentially the same as what scientists are saying today.
Again everything that scientists are saying has been demonstrated, verified and proven beyond a reasonable doubt (not 100%, science never says 100% but enough for us to treat it as fact). Creationism has never been demonstrated and there has never been a reason provided why we should believe it. You can have faith and belief all you want and that's fine but faith can lead you to different conclusions (chrisitianity, judaism, hinduism, etc.) so therefore it's not reliable.
Let me ask you this, why should anyone give their life to God when it hasn't even been demonstrated that he even exists? (notice I didn't say that I know he doesn't exist)
frustratingly dishonest. Evolution is not "speculation", Evolution has been repeatedly confirmed and the fact that you call it speculation not only shows that you don't get it but it is also very insulting to the years of study and research scientists have put into it. Of course they assert that the Earth is 4.56 billion years old, the current research points to an Earth that is 4.56 billion years old so for the time we have accepted that that is the age of the Earth, we have left the door open for more evidence to come later and we are willing to refine our view of the world if needed. I don't know any other way to explain this and it boggles my mind that you don't get it because I have explained it in the simplest possible terms. Science is constantly changing, our knowledge of science is constantly growing and with new information we reform our ideas. If we took our view of science 2018 years ago and we said "this is true, no question about it, toe the line or you will be tortured for eternity" like religion does then we would have gotten nowhere as a society and we would still believe in a geocentric model of the solar system.
No one says that the age of the universe is 4.5 billion years old, that is the age of the Earth/solar system, the universe is estimated to be closer to 13.7 billion. Get your facts straight
Yes science doesn't have all the answers, you are correct, Christianity however has ZERO answers, it is not demonstrable, it is not verifiable, it is all based on a book that was written millenniums ago, translated through several different languages, written at different times, it makes absurd claims which have no basis in the natural world (like the worlds population was reduced to 8 people a few thousand years ago and that Noah fit millions of organisms onto his boat while the hydrosphere more than tripled to flood the entire world and then Kangaroos somehow crossed oceans to make it to Australia while leaving no dead along the way since we didn't find any Kangaroo fossils in Asia) and it uses fear and guilt to get people to buy into it. I have already explained that faith is not an accurate pathway to the truth, I can have faith in Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam or Atheism, faith would lead us to different truths and we have no idea which one is correct. The difference between you and me is that
The difference between you and me is that I go off what the data tells me and I believe what is logical. You believe what you want to even if there is no reason to believe it and that's fine but don't try to discredit science because people far smarter than you and who have worked a lot harder than you have put a lot of time and effort into it and have discovered far more about the world than religion ever has. Also you have never observed God so I find it quite interesting that you would claim that Macro-Evolution has never been observed (which it has).
I know you'll pray for me, well I will think for you.
Also when were you in school? Because scientists have been saying the earth is roughly 4.5 billion years ever since the 1950s
shareNo they have not.
shareYes they have look it up, I provided you with a scientist in my other post. Chances are one of the following is true:
A) You're teachers didn't know what they were talking about
B) You didn't pay attention in class
C) You are being dishonest
I'm 50 years old. I was in about the 5th grade (1977?), when our general science class was introduced to evolution theory. The time period given then for the Earth's age was 6-7 hundred million years. My teacher, a Ms. Bramlett, seemed to know the curriculum and I was just a kid, so I heard what she explained to us and saw what our textbooks stated.
There's no reason to go from denigrating my sources to denigrating my education or character. Not agreeing with you is not the same as being dishonest.
Again, believe what you want. I will believe what I want. End of discussion for me.
Ms. Bramlett was an elementary school teacher and did not have a degree in any kind of science field (no I am not denigrating her as a teacher, being an elementary school teacher is a tough job, what I'm saying is she isn't an authority in any kind of science field like you and I aren't authorities in any kind of religious field). Sounds like she made a mistake or you simply forgot what she said considering you were in her class 40 years ago. What was the textbook and the edition you had? Maybe I can look it up and confirm? It's been agreed upon that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old ever since the 50's, scientists have been very consistent despite your pathetic attempts to discredit them. I'm also not believing that you remember this specific lesson from 40 years ago, I think you are lying to me.
I denigrate your sources because you cite people who don't have a background in science, I denigrate your education because you have yet to demonstrate that you even remotely understand how science works, I have NEVER denigrated your character so you owe me an apology for putting words in my mouth.
I don't believe what I want, I believe what is rational and what is supported by observations and data. You believe what you want but at least acknowledge that I have a reason for my beliefs while you do not.
I'll think for you.
" A) You're teachers didn't know what they were talking about
B) You didn't pay attention in class
C) You are being dishonest "
Denigrating my character.
" I'm also not believing that you remember this specific lesson from 40 years ago, I think you are lying to me."
There's where you denigrate my character yet again, after claiming you never did.
Okay, let's place that behind us, because I truly don't have any ill will towards you. Likely, if we knew each other out in the world, maybe we'd be friends.
Here's what I want to know though: If you're truly an evolutionists with no predisposed belief or an atheist who believes that everything in this life is due to macro evolution, why do you really care what a religious person believes? Why is that a threat? If we all die and then nothing, then you can go through the only life you'll have, at peace in knowing that you know what comes next. Someone else thinking there's something else beyond physical death shouldn't even bother you. After all, what's the point of convincing them they are wrong, if you're not saving them from anything but the same end that you have coming?
Just wondering.
I thought you were done???
And that comment wasn't "denigrating your character", what you're saying doesn't make a whole lot of sense and those are the options that I see. Again I opened up the possibility that the teacher just made a mistake. It would be hard for anyone to remember one lesson that they had 40 years ago when they were just a kid. What you're saying isn't very likely and not very convincing. It has nothing to do with your character.
I don't really care what religious people believe, I am however sick and tired of the way that some theists treat atheists. They talk down to atheists with a holier than thou attitude and feel it's their duty to "save them" or in other words just get them to think the way they do, as if there is something wrong with them (examples: "God has thrown you a life preserver, reach out and take it", "Jesus died for you", "I'll pray for you", "I feel sorry for you that you haven't found Jesus", etc.). They think that out of all of the world religions out there that they are the only ones who have it right (not to say other religions aren't like this also) and that everyone else is just wrong and for the crime of simply having a different world view they are going to hell to be eternally tortured (I'm assuming that is what you think as well, correct me if I'm wrong). As far as the concept of hell goes, I have a HUGE problem with it, first of all by Christian logic 2/3 of the world's population is going there and secondly is it morally just to torture someone forever for simply not loving you enough when they don't have any confirmation you even exist? They also act as if they are able to debunk all of evolution/Big Bang Theory/abiogenesis with "evidence" (such as a banana) that only points to their ignorance on the subject and not only is that incredibly obnoxious it's also pretty insulting to anyone who has a background in science. The truth of the matter is there is no way to possibly know if any world religion is right. I know plenty of atheists who are terrified to come out because they live in a religious community or have a religious family and don't want to have to deal with the hassle of other people "trying to save their soul" or being treated as if there is something wrong with them.
Believe me in some communities it is incredibly hard to admit you are an atheist. I know other atheists know how to dish it out, I have seen some atheists vocally attack religion and I don't think that is right either. If you want people to respect your beliefs then you need to respect other people's beliefs and yes this goes both ways I understand that, but if you read back through my posts I don't think I ever once attacked anyone for simply being Christian. I don’t like bring preached at it has happened to me and I simply wanted the conversation to end because I didn’t feel like getting into an uncomfortable position. I know you wouldn’t like it if a friend or a family member tried to convert you to let’s say Islam or Judaism.
Answer me this, do you believe that myself and every other non-believer (which would be well over half the world population) on the planet is going to hell and if so do you agree with it?
The only reason that some religious people (like Kirk Cameron) get mocked is because they constantly are insisting absurd ideas are true that are completely contradicted by the laws of nature. They claim that they know more about science than all of the PhD's on Earth when they don't even know the first thing of what they are talking about. Come on man, please tell me you are not this ignorant. The fact that the age of the Earth is being adjusted shows that we are going off what current studies and data is telling us and as time goes on our number is getting more and more accurate. There is nothing to suggest the Earth is only a few thousand years old, that is absurd on all levels. The reason some religious people cling to it is because that is what people believed a long time ago and if they admit that they were wrong then people might start questioning Christianity and other world religions.
I think all creation events in every religion are equally nonsensical it's not an attack on Christianity at all, it's an attack on people making outlandish claims that they can't back up.
OK do you know how a fossil forms? Do you realize that a lot of these fossils are billions of years old? Do you know how hard it is for an organism to be fossilized? What is more likely to be fossilized a T-Rex or a squid? Of course not every organism that ever lived got fossilized that is ridiculous, however from the fossils we have found we have assembled a biologic timeline that shows organisms slowly evolving into other organisms. We can tell this through homologous structures and other bone evidence. We also know what lived when because organisms are always staying in their rock layers, you don't find a fossil of a T-Rex mixed in with a fossil of a trilobite because they lived in different time periods and those time periods were millions to hundreds of millions of years ago?
OK do you even know what a transitional form is? I'll give you a little help it isn't a Crocoduck, every organism is constantly evolving and changing into another form, we are transitional forms of life that lived millions of years ago and we will eventually transition into something else in a few millions years or so. Read this background information: https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/lines_03
Transitional forms do not happen from generation to generation (parent to offspring), no scientist ever predicted that and if you can find one who did I will be the first to tell him he's wrong (after everyone else who probably did), transitional forms occur very slowly over long periods of time. Humans are a transitional form, we evolved from earlier life and we will continue to evolve into other life forms assuming we don't undergo an extinction event. And what is your point about crocodiles and turtles? There is no set rate of evolution or DNA mutation (no one ever said there was) different organisms evolve differently (and since you were the one who cited punctuated equilibrium I think you would understand that life does not evolve in even consistent rates). Macro-Evolution has occurred and should continue to occur, all fossil evidence shows that life started out very simple and primitive (around 3.8 billion years ago) and then slowly became more complex until we have what we have today. Several examples of macro-evolution including phylogenetic trees are provided here along with citations: https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/macroevolution-examples-from-the-primate-world-96679683
Do you realize that you claim to have evidence that could turn all of science and our knowledge of the natural world on its head? So where is your noble peace prize? Where is your honorary doctorate? Scientists would welcome anyone who could refute evolution with open arms, scientists want to discover more about the natural world, there is no set idea that scientists want to indoctrinate the world with so lay off the conspiracy theories.
Now I have never claimed that I know all the answers, I have never said that God doesn't exist, before I believe and dedicate my entire life to this God I would at least like a little confirmation that he does indeed exist (seems perfectly logical). At this present moment however all signs point to an old Earth (billions of years) and that life began very simple and evolve into diverse complex life. When that becomes refuted I'll accept it but I'll tell you right now the likes of Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, Ken Hamm, and Eric Hovind aren't even close to presenting anything that represents a logical, scientific argument. All of them began with their conclusion (they want the answer to be creation) and that isn't how science works. Hell Ray Comfort thinks a banana is evidence of God's existence.
Also just to let you know even if you could disprove all of evolution (which you can't) you would still be no closer to proving God's existence. God is not the default position.
shareExplain to me how faith is a reliable pathway to truth? People can have faith that Christianity is true, people can have faith that Islam is true, Judaism, Hinduism, Atheism, etc. and it doesn't get us anywhere.
No science is based on evidence and experimental testing, the things that scientists say they don't base it on faith or what feels right. Theories and Laws are based on evidence and repeated testing and confirmation. It's kind of like in a murder trial the jury makes their decision based on the evidence, not on faith. It's kind of like saying "yeah I know that all of this evidence suggests that the guy is innocent but I have faith that he's guilty and he just looks guilty so I am going to vote guilty". That is absurd, even if the evidence was wrong the jury had a definite reason to believe he was not guilty and therefore it would be the logical thing to vote not guilty.
it's the result of intelligent design. Therefore there is no reason to believe that the Earth was created by a deity.
By the way the universe is estimated to be about 13.7 billion years old, the Earth is estimated to be about 4.56 billion years old, you're numbers aren't quite right. You know Mercury doesn't have a magnetic field? Scientists have concluded based on experimental evidence that Mercury does have a weak magnetic field:
https://phys.org/news/2011-12-mercury-magnetic-field-nipped.html
Where is your scientific study? Don't take offense to this or anything but I am more inclined to believe NASA over you.
You never answered my question: Do you think I'm going to hell and if so do you agree with it?
shareI don't make that call, whether someone goes to hell or not. All I know is that salvation comes through Jesus our Lord. Of course, if you don't believe in the Christian God, that's your prerogative. It's one of the things I often find confusing about those who take issue with Christianity. If it's not for you, it's not for you. There's no reason to single out one religion in particular.
It's like colors of paint. Someone might think a shade of green is perfect for the kitchen walls but you might think that green is the worst color anyone could like. Yet it's not your kitchen so you don't really care.
What harm comes form someone believing in something higher, something supernatural?
At the end of the day, my Lord is loving and always merciful. Redemption is a powerful state.
Don’t hide like a coward just answer the question. I’m not asking what the Bible says I am asking your opinion.
I don’t have a problem with you being Christian, you live your life how you want to. I would like to be able to live my life and not have to hide who I am out of fear of being judged and being treated like there’s something wrong with me.
Why do you care what someone thinks of you, especially people who you don't agree with or like that much? I'm sorry but there aren't roving bands of Christian zealots marching in boots down the streets, carrying batons and smashing in doors to get unbelievers. I know that sounds sarcastic but seriously.
In a world where you can be anyone, be you. Trust me, I don't have a problem with you not being Christian. That's your choice.
Seriously dude if you are going to attack science and debate me back and forth with essay questions at least have the courage to stand by your religion. You know what your bible says and you know it’s an immoral system .
shareI'm not attacking science. God created science. God created me, you and all things. Free will is always a factor but God is always there, always willing to accept, to heal, to enrich and to love. I don't condemn anyone to hell and neither does God. Free will.
As I've stated before, I think you and I would be friends if we knew each other outside the board-verse. I think you're intelligent and passionate. I admire that in most people.
You cannot say that with any kind of justification because the supernatural has never even been observed. Saying god did it is such a cop out, you can use that to explain anything without any evidence.
Well that’s good to hear that you wouldn’t condemn me to hell, you are more moral than the god of the Bible who if he actually exists and the Bible is actually accurate would send myself and about 65 percent of the worlds population to eternal torment.
65% is wishful, it´ll be more like 95+%.
share"I don't condemn anyone to hell and neither does God. Free will."
God will definitely condemn people to hell. Scripture is littered with passages about Jesus judging people on the last day.
The judgement is a result of their FREE WILL to accept Him or not. If I invite you to my house for dinner and you refuse, guess what? You don't get to have the dinner. Deny God and you won't be going to His house. Don't like it? Go start your own universe.
shareThe judgment is a result of both their sin and rejection of Christ. Man will naturally reject Christ. Scripture doesn´t say they have the "free will" to choose God. In fact, it says the opposite, only those who are drawn by God the Father will be raised up by Christ on the last day. John 6. The invite is "open", but only those chosen will respond to the call/invite.
shareI think there's a lot more to "election" than meets the eye.
shareChristianity is offensive. Cameron is mentally retarded.
shareI don’t find Christianity in general offensive, it’s mostly the Southern Baptist mentality I take offense to as they think they have a right to talk down to anyone who doesn’t think like they do. That and the fact that if you don’t convert to their beliefs you are apparently heading for eternal torment. I completely agree with you about Kirk though
shareHe was probably molested/raped by his parents or a close relative and they did nothing about it.
shareThat seriously wouldn't surprise me.
shareAren't there rumors going around that Kirk Cameron is a self-hating deeply closeted man and he became a hardcore Christian fundie in hopes of "praying the gay away"?
https://www.google.com/search?ei=Bgx1W9fsG4OotQXNnZ-oBA&q=kirk+cameron+closeted+&oq=kirk+cameron+closeted+&gs_l=psy-ab.3...4758.7920.0.8692.11.11.0.0.0.0.353.1763.1j8j1j1.11.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.4.881...0j35i39k1j0i20i264k1j0i22i30k1j0i22i10i30k1.0.CU1AZzFhb-A
That's definitely a possibility. I worked with a couple of guys who were OVERLY religious and were always harping on the sins of homosexuality (particularly among men, but never focused as much on Lesbians). Turns out years later that the both of them came out of the closet and did a 180 both spiritually and politically.
shareYou know as much as Christians enjoy preaching love and goodwill they have the potential to be very judgmental and bigoted, and I'm mostly talking about the ones who not only believe but openly state that you are going to hell simply for having different beliefs from them.
shareJordan Knight from NKOTB also implied that Kirk is a self-hating gay man and his homophobia is a defense mechanism. Jordan understandably, would have a dog in the fight since his brother, Jonathan is openly gay.
http://www.mtv.com/news/2582115/jordan-knight-on-kirk-camerons-post-anti-gay-comments-seriously/
His statements angered another heartthrob of the 1980s, New Kid On The Block Jordan Knight, who only had this to say on Twitter in response: "Seriously Kirk?"
Jordan, whose fellow New Kid and brother Jonathan Knight came out publicly last year, later added, "Get right with yourself on the inside... Ya won't have to take the fight to the world.. #justsayin."
Don't forget Eugene Scott!
shareWell to be honest he did hang out with a kid called "Boner".
shareHis parents may have been from the Midwest (my entire family roots were from there and The South.)
I'm from Southern Calif.I'm a reasonable Christian (my dialoect and locutions are certainly more midwest..)
Previewing my new signature
Remember the Golden Rule. Whoever has the most gold makes the most rules.
Golden Retrievers have the most gold. Therefore, Golden Retrievers make the most rules.
(change religion to Scientology, Mormon, Marxism as you see fit)
You would think for a guy who grew up in Los Angeles...
He wouldn't be so immersed into Islam. Especially this bizarre and aggressive style of Islamism. Even odder apparently has parents were not the most religious and it was him, himself that went into this religious madness into his teen years and converted his sister later on. And the obsession continues well into his adulthood.
I wonder what lead to this unusual religious obsession? Some type of mental illness.