-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Atheism
- Thread starter Disco08
- Start date
jayfox said:
Containing internal contradictions and of questionable accuracy for reasons discussed in the Christianity thread.
Six Pack said:
They do contain some historical truths, and some inaccuracies. They are undoubtedly religious texts with a Christian bias (in the NT) by definition. Yes, there is a distinct lack of substantiating evidence.
antman said:
So you reckon if God was a better designer, we would all have a blowhole?? Pulleeese :hihi :hihi
antman said:
Yes vesigal I agree. An example of information loss which fits right in with creation!!
Panthera tigris FC said:
Animals in distinct taxonomic groupings with functional gaps in between.
No transitional forms ( ie the intermediate forms predicted by the theory of evolution are living things falling between two species which possess deficient or semi-developed organs). If evolution were true you would expect numerous ones both living and fossilised as they must also be a fully viable species/group to be something transitional.
Djevv said:
Don't deliberately miss the point. It's an example of a design flaw that some animals have evolved to correct, whilst others haven't
I don't think God or anyone did design us, except evolution. Evolution explains profound design "faults" and vestigial organs and limbs, intelligent design doesn't.
antman said:
Djevv said:
OK now you have lost me completely.
Djevv said:
Thanks for the response Djevv.
Can you define "functional gaps" for me.
I don't understand the idea of "deficient or semi-developed organs" we are quite distinct as a species from Sus scrofa (the pig) yet our organs are sufficiently similar (as predicted by evolution by common descent) that they are the target of research into xenotransplantation. Both organs serve both species well, they are not 'deficient' or 'semi-developed' in any way, however I would be surprised to see you argue that pigs and humans are not distinct species.
Can you explain exactly what you mean by this prediction?
What would you expect a 'transitional' species to look like? Are humans a transitional species?
Djevv said:
OK now you have lost me completely.
[/quote]
Correct me if I'm wrong Djevv, but you are having a dip in each pool with this quote. You either believe in ID which states that evolution is guided by a divine force or you believe in creation which states that perfection is found in the original creation and all 'negative' genetic effects occurred after the 'fall', such as vestigial organs.
Can you clarify this for me?
I havent seen the guy - all ive heard of is some kind of books that announce his prescence a number of years ago. All of seen is churches built around this figure that take donations every week from these believers. All of seen lately in the last 20 years at least is a number of these people who apparently represent this person in court defending child sex allegations which the churches have had to pay out millions of dollars in compensation. All of seenare these people who believe in this person persecute people who I know are real and who are far more trustworthy and who i would believe in, way more than these perons so called "god".
Panthera tigris FC said:
ID, creationist etc are merely labels. I am a Bible believing Christian. Evolution/creation/young earth are all NON-ESSENTIAL doctrines and Christians sit on both sides of the fence. As for where I stand, read my posts. Hope this clarifies things
.
Djevv said:ID, creationist etc are merely labels. I am a Bible believing Christian. Evolution/creation/young earth are all NON-ESSENTIAL doctrines and Christians sit on both sides of the fence. As for where I stand, read my posts. Hope this clarifies things
I am not sure what you mean by NON-ESSENTIAL doctrines. You either believe the bible dogmatically as the true word of god or you cherry pick from it.
The reason for my post that you responded to was a perceived contradiction in your stance on the matters of evolution and creation.
Panthera tigris FC said:Djevv said:ID, creationist etc are merely labels. I am a Bible believing Christian. Evolution/creation/young earth are all NON-ESSENTIAL doctrines and Christians sit on both sides of the fence. As for where I stand, read my posts. Hope this clarifies things
I am not sure what you mean by NON-ESSENTIAL doctrines. You either believe the bible dogmatically as the true word of god or you cherry pick from it.
The reason for my post that you responded to was a perceived contradiction in your stance on the matters of evolution and creation.
Some of the 'cherry pickers' seem to have ironclad faith, whilst a lot of the dogma-bound ones have a very mean and spiteful approach to things.
Panthera tigris FC said:Djevv said:ID, creationist etc are merely labels. I am a Bible believing Christian. Evolution/creation/young earth are all NON-ESSENTIAL doctrines and Christians sit on both sides of the fence. As for where I stand, read my posts. Hope this clarifies things
I am not sure what you mean by NON-ESSENTIAL doctrines. You either believe the bible dogmatically as the true word of god or you cherry pick from it.
The reason for my post that you responded to was a perceived contradiction in your stance on the matters of evolution and creation.
Sorry you will have to clarify the percieved contradiction. Flightless birds are birds who had ancestors who could fly but lost this ability. This is not a problem for creationists as information loss since the flood due to the fall is expected.
As for the Bible I said I believed it. But if you think understanding the Bible is simple or straighforward, then I suggest you write a book on it and unite the Church! Essential doctrines are those you must believe to be considered a Christian.
