That's what irks me about Creationists.

You ask them to prove to you god exists. What do they tell you,

them: "look around you, this is his work."

me: "that proves nothing, prove that 'god' exists"

them: "it's faith, you have to believe he exists, I know he exists"

what kinda messed up bs is that.

Christianity is one of many religions. It is a religion of its time. Religion stemmed from people trying to explain the unexplainable(at that time). As times changed, so did religion. We've come to a point where religions are settling in and no new religions are gonna appear.

What gets me is that most of these christians are not christian by choice, but by birth. They've never studied anything outside of christianity and take that to be the all end all of religions. PLEASE.

 

I wasn't being literal about the camera thing. C'mon. The thing is, you cannot scientifically PROVE evolution. Or creationism for that matter. You can find evidence that leans toward that perspective. Only circumstantial evidence. For those that don't believe Jesus is the Son of God:

Matthew 8:29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?

Matt. 14:33 Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

Matt. 26:63 But Jesus held his peace, And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.

Matt. 27:43 He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.

Matt. 27:54 Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.

Mark 1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God

Luke 4:41 And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God. And he rebuking them suffered them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ.

Luke 22:70 Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.

The list goes on and on...

 

fish example:
understandable. possible. but the 3eyed fish are still fish. this is an example of adaptation not evolution.

applied to humans/monkeys:
are we just glorified monkeys then? the word "humans" will then mean it is just a word we created to make us feel better about ourselves and not remind us that we're just talking monkeys. but we do more than just "talk." we are able to love, hate, think/contemplate, plan, construct and go beyond our "primal" nature (if we are indeed monkeys/apes).

i will agree on part, that there are many people who claim to be Christians, yet are unknowledged of the religion and indeed appear as "hypocrites." but there are also many people who are indeed Christians and are not "hypocrites." so please dont call out names and generalize and stereotype all persons of religious faith (in this case Christianity) as a "bible thumper" or "fanatic."

 

by the way,
a human soul is undeniable in its existance. it can never be scientifically proven of creation, yet it cannot be denied of its presence. science, like all things man-made, is flawed at one point also. the skeletal remains? sure, bones were found. an actual skeleton? never. at least not a whole/majority of a "cro-magnum" being. all pictures and displays of primitive "human/ape man" skeletons are all based on hypothesis and educated guesses. seriously. many scientists/archaelogists have taken a bone that is considered to be a "thumb" for example, and constructed an entire being out of that. where do i get this information? talk person to person to any scientist/researcher who has performed actual experience in the field and not some book scholar who knows every science theory out there. talk to one with actual experience in the field of digging and researching in the actual EARTH. digging through books doesnt cut it.

 

The word was not created to make us feel better, it is because we are different. And the rest of your argument is just an example of how far we have evolved. *sigh* we are NOT indeed monkeys/apes we evolved from something similar.


I don't understand how people can say stuff like this. It sure as hell is deniable, I deny it!

 

in that case, the two examples presented earlier regarding the fish and colored mice are completely dismissable since they remain the same entity, just "better" forms of it. and if it is refuted then that means we are still "monkeys/apes" but just a "better" form of it.

if the human soul is deniable and you deny it, please explain from your point of view and knowledge of the existance of human emotions. surely you have and have felt emotions. are we completely life-less and no different than a rock on the ground? a flower in the field? a fruit from a tree? existance does not equate to a living life. and the soul is what distinguishes us from the rest of the things in this world.

 

i don't think humans evolved from apes but humans ARE evolving. dig up some graves from 100 years ago and you will see that humans today are a bit taller than humans back then.

 

i dont know about the whole height thing, but i see your point and i do agree with it. however i still personally think that "adaptation" is a more fitting term and description of the change in human physics rather than the term "evolving". :dunno:

 

Adaptation is the process by which evolution occurs, they're not mutually exclusive. Evolution is a gradient. A monkey didn't one day magically have a kid that was a human. There is a series of definable species along the way between some kind of prehistoric ape and the modern-day homo sapiens. New species develop as members of one species develop some sort of mutation that causes it to succeed in greater numbers than the old mutation. Eventually there is a large enough population of individuals with the new mutation, and then that population develops its own set of mutations that either succeed or fail. With enough mutations and enough time you get a new thing with enough mutations to classify it as a new species.

Sure the three-eyed fish is only one adaptation, but it's a simplified example for purposes of demonstration rather than an attempt to explain the entire process of evolution.
This is getting a bit off the topic. What makes a human different from a dog? Why don't dogs have souls? They wag their tail when they're happy, they yelp when they're tired, they have social interactions both among themselves and with other species (chasing cats for example).

If you're going to try and prove something you have to use logic rather than faith and then say that just because we don't believe the same thing doesn't mean it's not true. The way you counter a logical argument is cast doubt upon one of its premises which is what I have done with this talk about souls. The response to this is to prove the premise which has been called into question. This is what we call logical debate.

Descartes used logic to "prove" the existence of G-d; while the premises he used are perhaps suspect he still made a logical argument. He had mass quantities of faith but he didn't use it as a stop-gap in his argument; and each of his premises supported each other such that it is very hard to disprove his argument.

 

The instant people start quoting the Bible as fact I ignore the thread.

This should be closed.