Can You Connect to God Without Religion?
Is there a difference between God and Religion? There is definitely a difference between God and religion. God is someone I have a relationship with. My view on God can be altered by many factors in my life. It can be affected by my relationship with my own father or even by my culture and the people I spend time with.
I see religion is a set of beliefs that have guidelines for behavior associated with them. There are many religions with many differing beliefs and rules. I don’t think God needs religion. He wants to have a relationship with me. It is so easy for me to get confused and think that my relationship with him has rules of engagement. I love knowing that God cares about me and that my relationship with him does not need a lot of order and structure. I want to participate in religion or church to celebrate his holiness, but it’s not a condition of knowing God. Do you believe you can you connect to God without religion?
If you have questions, we’d love to hear from you. Use this form to be matched with one of our mentors. Mentors are trained volunteers with real life experience. They can answer questions, point you to other resources or just listen when you have something to say.
Your mentor will email you using our secure system, The Mentor Center (TMC). TMC ensures your privacy by protecting your information. If you want to keep talking, just hit reply. The conversation is free, confidential and non-judgmental. You can keep talking to your mentor as long as you like and there is never a fee. If you’re curious, start a conversation. We’re ready when you are.
See the complete list of questions
Comments are also welcome!
Jack, I think your question comes from a misunderstanding of time and a misunderstanding of the nature of God. Before Creation, there was nothing; nothing existed except God. Prior to that first moment, time did not exist. The Bible uses time-centred language because we are finite beings bound to time and space. Time is a part of this natural universe which God created but it becomes meaningless in the eternal existence of an infinite God. It is not something that our finite minds can comprehend because we are immersed in time. So your question of how long did darkness last for is unanswerable because there was no time to measure.
Jamie:
Before there was light,how long did the darkness last for?
Ok I don’t believe in a God that causes people to have a rush when we murder!
It is interesting when you look at the record of the beginning of sin in humanity, Adam also tried to blame God for his sin. When confronted by God Adam said, “The woman who You gave to be with me, she gave me the fruit…” (Genesis 3:12) It didn’t work back then and it still won’t fly when you try to pin the blame for sin on God, today.
We have had this conversation before Jack and I know that you don’t accept it, but I will state it again: God is not the source of evil, because evil is the absence of God. You will notice that the Bible doesn’t mention that God created darkness; that is because darkness is the absence of light. Hence God’s creative command, “Let there be light!” (Genesis 1:3) John wrote that, “God is light and in Him there is no darkness at all.” (1John 1:5) so it is inconsistent with God’s nature to create darkness. The Bible states that God is the source of every good and perfect gift (James 1:17) Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon who defeated and destroyed the nation of Israel, testified “I praise and extol and honour the King of Heaven, for all His works are right and His ways are just”. (Daniel 4:37) So it is inconsistent with God’s nature to create evil.
The Bible does tell us where evil did come from though, “sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned” (Romans 5:12) So it was humanity that brought sin into existence, not God.
Now that may not be the God you believe exists, but that is the God who has revealed Himself in the Bible.
Jamie:
Nothing exists but through GOD’s consent. Is this not the GOD that you believe in?
Hi Jack, The Bible says that those evil desires we have did not come from God but from our sinfulness. James wrote, “Let no one say when he is tempted, I am being tempted by God, for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.” (James 1:13-15) God created Adam and Eve in perfection, with out a nature that was bent towards sin; in fact, they were created to reflect the nature of God. But when they rebelled against God that reflection was marred and no longer matched the perfection that God had created. In Genesis 5 we see this shift described clearly, “When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created. 3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.” (Genesis 5:1-3) So all the generations after Adam, we no longer resemble our Father in Heaven, but our Earthly father, Adam. It is that broken reflection of God’s perfection that leads us to have evil thoughts and evil actions.
I don’t know about you, but the idea that an all-powerful God is capable of both good and evil is a very scary thought. There are many religions that have that concept and it implants a deep-seated fear and mistrust. It is the experience of life in the home of angry alcoholic where no one knows how he is going to act when he comes home.
That is not the God of the Bible at all. Even in His judgement and discipline He is consistent and clear. Everything He does is perfect and good.
Wow Jamie:
Serial killers are born with a GOD given desire to murder. There is no choice involved. You were born without a GOD given desire to murder. Most people are. Jamie according to the Bible why did GOD create serial killers?
Wow Jack! So you are suggesting that a person can connect with God and fulfill God’s purpose for them when they murder. That adds an unexpected twist to the nature of God.
Jamie:
Serial killers get an endorphin rush when they kill. GOD allows all of us to have this experience even when some us enjoy doing evil. GOD moves in mysterious ways.
Seon, you seem to see the process of reincarnation as a blessing. That is different from most religions that believe humanity is trapped in a continual cycle of reincarnation. In Buddhism and Hinduism the goal of life is to break free from that cycle. Are you suggesting that humanity was created for an infinite cycle of shedding one bodily temple for another? Or is there something that we need to achieve through those lives that will earn our freedom from that?
You ask a fair question Seon, I know that I have known people who have had spiritual experiences that are even more captivating than what I have had. A friend of our family was deeply involved in connecting with a spirit guide who had helped her to have spirit journeys to places around the world. I have friends from Asian countries who have grown up communicating with their ancestors as they carefully venerate those who have gone before them. Spiritual experiences are not limited to those who are followers of Jesus. Figuring out who the true God is and hearing from Him is an important question.
There are a few things that have given me confidence in my connection through Jesus Christ. First of all, is the evidence of God’s love for us, His Creation. That love in evidenced in so many different ways, but is clearly seen in the extravagance of His Creation. The vast diversity of tastes, sights, smells, textures. The extreme complexity of the universe and the amazing beauty it contains. The intricate structure of the micro-universe with cells, molecules, atoms, etc. The Creator did not have to create with such extravagance, but it reveals His love for His Creation to go completely overboard in creating all of this for all of us. A Creator that loves this intensely is doing so because He wants to be known. A Creator that wants to be known is not going to hide Himself from those He wants to have a relationship with; He is going to make sure that His Creation can know Him as He is and not get fooled into following a counterfeit. A written revelation that can provide a clear picture of who He is and how we can interact with Him fits that kind of Creator. But then actually entering our existence and becoming one of us is an extreme action of a God that wants to be known. It is an unthinkable humiliation that the Almighty Creator of the universe would become a part of His creation Himself. He then sends His Spirit to guide and direct His people to know Him and His purposes; for me that seals the amazing lengths that God goes to in order to be known.
As I look at all religions, none of them fit the reality we see around us like the Bible describes. I know I have said this before but I also see the uniqueness of the message of Jesus as evidence that He is who He says He is. All other religions require us to do something to earn our access to God, and deal with our separation from Him. For some religions it is following a moral code, others it is through following ritual, and still others require spiritual enlightenment. Jesus is the only one who says, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life” and “Apart from Me you can do nothing”. All of our moral choices, ritualistic purifications, and attaining new planes of enlightenment fall absolutely short of bridging the gap we have made between God and ourselves. It is only through the sacrifice of God Himself that we have any hope of connecting with Him. All religions are an attempt to reach up to God. Jesus is the only example of God reaching down to us to rescue us from oursleves. That fits a Creator who loves His Creation intensely and whose purpose for Creation is to know Him.
My friend who spent so much time with her spirit guide finally took the step to ask Jesus to reveal the true identity of her spirit guide. Her description of how this most beautiful creature suddenly morphed into a hideous monster is chilling. That moment she realized she had been fooled by evil and it began her journey to find a true connection with her Creator through a relationship with Jesus Christ
Hi Jamie,
Yes. I believe we are spiritual beings having a human experience. When we die we simply shed this temple for another one. So yes, our souls were created by god but our bodies are just a process of evolution through natural selection.
How do you know it’s God communicating with you? What about people from other faiths who believe their God communicates with them just as sincerely as you do? I believe they are many paths to our creator but I can see how Christians and Muslims would disagree.
I believe God sends people into our lives as well, so I guess he isn’t as distance as I once thought. I still believe atheists are capable of compassion as well. But if faith helps you be compassionate to the needy who am I to judge?
I’ve been looking back on some of our older conversation where you were talking about how when this life ends we return ‘home’ to be with God until we can choose our next life to be reincarnated into. The form we are in when we are ‘home’, is that our created form? Do we have a relationship/communication with God in that form?
I do believe that God communicates with me. In fact, because God is infinite, I believe that there isn’t a moment when His unlimited attention isn’t squarely directed at me. There are many ways that He communicates with me: 1) through what He has made-just like any piece of art, the character of the creator is revealed through what has been made; 2) through prayer – I have never heard any audible voice (although I know many people who have) God moves in my heart and mind when I focus on listening for Him. I ask for His help in dealing with situations in my life and I know that He directs my thoughts, attitudes and actions to be in line with His plan for my life; 3) through other people – As I interact with people God uses them to speak into my life. Sometimes it is intentional where God speaks specific things to a person who has come up to me and said, “God told me to tell you…” but more often it is when i am talking to people and hear how God has dealt with them that I understand what He wants from me; 4) through serving others, especially those who are in need – God has great compassion on the poor, the oppressed, the orphans, the sick and He is actively involved in their lives. When I serve those people I meet with God; 5) through the Bible – I know that I can get fooled sometimes by my own ideas and selfishness, as well as by others who are not listening to God. Everything that I hear from all the other sources needs to line up with the way God has revealed Himself in the Bible. If it doesn’t, I know that it is not from Him.
I gotta say, knowing that God is with me always, directing me towards what He wants from me, gives me great confidence. I don’t have to be uncertain about my decisions or priorities. He is generous in the way He communicates and I can know that His direction is always perfect. I just need to make sure I am focusing on listening to Him and He will direct my path.
Hi Jamie,
I suppose in order to jump start the natural laws that created the universe it would have to have a supernatural origin.
Nope, I don’t believe he communicates back. It would be great if she does and it’s great that some people have faith that he does.
Do you? If so, how does God respond to you?
So Seon, was the act of Creation a Supernatural action? Did the forces of Nature need the Creator to ‘kick-start’ them?
When you say we can talk to the Creator does that mean we can have a relationship with Him? Does He communicate back to us? I don’t just mean that we ask Him for stuff and He says “No”, but can we interact with Him like we do with people?
Hi Jamie,
Yes I believe the creator used natural forces to create us, but he is beyond nature so I guess Supernatural.
We can talk to and connect with the creator all we want but his answer will always be “No” or “Do it yourselves, I gave you the capacity”
Endorphins are a wonderful gift from God. So would you say that our connection to God is just a release of endorphins that can be accomplished through multiple activities that have nothing to do with God? You stated once here that religious fanatics get an endorphin rush from attacking other people’s belief system. I suppose some people get an endorphin rush from being in a power position over others. Are all of those valid ways of living out God’s purpose of being happy? Why would God reward that activity with endorphins?
God gave us endorphins. It was done so we would be happy and healthy. if you exercise intensely you generate endorphins. If you smile or laugh you produce endorphins. If you pray or meditate you will produce endorphins. Endorphins are more potent than heroin. God created humanity to be filled with joy and to spread joy around.
Thanks Seon, I assume when you say that the Creator used science you mean that the Creator used natural forces. Does that mean the Creator is a part of Nature and subject to Nature’s laws? Or is the Creator ‘outside’ of the realm of Nature, (i.e. Supernatural)?
If the Creator does not interfere in mortal affairs how are we able to connect with her?
Hi Jamie,
I’ve been pondering your question and short answer: I don’t know. I believe in a creator but I believe she used science to create us and humans are uncovering how she created us through natural science.
Maybe it’s some sort of force or maybe it became the universe. I believe God loves us but doesn’t interfere with mortal affairs.
Seon, your conversation here has puzzled me somewhat. There are times when you speak about God as a person who is actively engaged in the lives of people; other times you have referred to God as an impersonal force; and other times it seems like you don’t have confidence that God exists. I would like to better understand what you mean when you refer to God. How would you describe God?
For anyone interested google Fact or fiction: A mother and father is better than same-sex parents ABC news. I remember during my debate with Tom this topic came up so it should be an interesting read.
Jack, no one will change Tom’s mind unless it is God. And even then God would have a tough time.
2 Corinthians 5:20–
“Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.”
Tom:
You are an exuberant man of faith. It unfortunately has made you cold and insensitive to the those who don’t prescribe to your beliefs. You believe in a GOD who punishes souls in hell fire for all eternity. People who are attracted to such a beastly interpretation of scripture are cursed by Satan with hateful souls. Your lack of compassion will not end well for your soul. When you pass, you will witness all the souls of atheists and communists who await you in heaven. They will tell you how much pleasure they derived from you silly posts. But then you will finally know the truth as they have learned as well. Your soul will punish itself by regretting how judgmental it was in your former life. Before its too late open your heart to the Joyful GOD who witnesses our true intentions.
Hey Jack, that’s basically what I did instead of abandoning my faith all together. When I saw evidence for science I changed my faith to fit in with what science says and when I read stuff in the Bible that doesn’t make sense I stopped believing in it and I’m pretty happy despite what Tom might think.
John 3:36–
(Jesus said) “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”
Revelation 21:8–“But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”
Tom:
In your world view what happens to Muslims after they die? Indeed what happened to the souls of all those billions of humans that lived before Jesus first appeared? What happens to all the billions of souls who were born after Jesus who lived in part of the world that never heard of Jesus Christ? What happened to the agnostic soldier’s soul who died to save the life of his Christian brother? What happened to the Christian soul who butchered his entire family?
John 14:6–
“Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.'”
Acts 4:12–
“And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.”
John 3:36–
(Jesus said) “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”
Do you think Tom’s persistence is a matter of tolerance, Jack? Don’t you think it reflects his belief that Jesus is the only hope for humanity? It is out of a deep love, concern and divine calling that Tom continues to point people to that hope.
I guess it makes me wonder why you are so persistent. Not to say that you have any less love for humanity, but as I understand how you have presented your belief, everyone connects to God in their own way and if they miss doing so in this life, will get another chance to get it right in their future reincarnations. If that is the case, why are you so determined to prove that Tom is wrong? Even if he ‘misleads’ someone in this life, they will get a chance to connect properly with God in the next. It just doesn’t seem like what you believe lines up with your actions. Is it that I have misunderstood your belief system?
Tom:
You have no doubt whatsoever. It is clear to me that you have little tolerance for other faiths. This type attitude restricts you to a very narrow point of view. There is very real danger in your righteous attitude.
Proverbs 16:18King James Version (KJV)
18 Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.
Proverbs 18:2–“A fool does not delight in understanding,but only in revealing his own mind.”
Seon;
We must always doubt ourselves. Only GOD knows the truth. When we place limits on our faith we don’t fall victim into believing everything we read is true. It is a sign of our maturation when we know how to limit our beliefs. By limiting ourselves in this way, we become tolerant of other belief systems. Tolerance is another way we mature into adulthood.
Yep Jack you are right, it’s like trying to convince a child Santa is fake. What do you mean limits on my faith?
ROMANS 1:16
ROMANS 10:17
Tom all of your posts are biblical. Unquestionably, you are addicted to scripture. Soon psychiatry will have a new chapter on Religious Addiction. Treatment would consist of exposure to LOGIC. Only your logical mind can free you from this addiction. I will pray for a speedy cure for you.
ISAIAH 40:8
The bible was edited. The men who eliminated parts of the bible were inspired by GOD. The original writers who wrote the eliminated parts of the bible were clearly not inspired by GOD. People like you TOM, buy into this nonsense.
LUKE 6:39
Seon;
You are waisting your time. Religious fanatics are addicted to their beliefs. They get an endorphin rush every time they think, write or worship within their faith. GOD enriched our lives with this biochemical. We get a rush when we smile or laugh or contemplate our Creator. GOD gave each of us a rational mind to understand that there is a real danger in an excessive attraction to religious matters. You forget to employ your rational mind to put limits on your faith. They derive an incorrect pleasure from their faith. It blinds them to a logical argument.
I guess this is a copy and paste war now. I have never read so many logical fallacies by people who have no idea what evolution actually is. Yikes no wonder you deny evolution, I completely understand now.
And for those evolutionists who think the Bible contains “magic,” let’s see what real magic looks like:
Unmasking Evolution’s Magic Words
In the following paragraphs Dr. Randy Guliuzza shows how evolutionists, when they cannot use words matching observational science-based data, bluff their imagined theory by “magic words”, as if the mere usage of “magic words” (like “evolved” and “emerged”) were an acceptable substitute for accurate information about observable facts and events in the natural world.
Everyone certainly sees design in nature by observing the purpose of precisely fitted parts—those in fish gills or bird wings, for instance, enable those animals to fit into their environments. Evolutionists, however, seek to suppress humans’ natural tendency to link features of design to a real designer. They teach that complex animals only appear to be designed and that what looks like intelligent crafting is only an illusion.
Why not accept that evolutionary explanation? This is a fair question, but there is no need to jump right into a list of scientific problems raised by evolution. Instead, start with what is relevant to explaining design: the fact that evolutionary “science” is different from sciences that use natural, repeatable, and verifiable methods to explain phenomena. Evolution is fundamentally a historical narrative—a story—that attempts to reconstruct unseen past events.Many people find this story too weak to be a persuasive reason for design, since it is built on absolute chance and uses remarkably unscientific language within its explanations.
Evolutionists Explain Design Using Unscientific “Magic Words”
The term “magic words” is used here as a concise idiom that describes the best words evolutionists use to explain “apparent” design. Evolutionists confidently insist that a complex biological feature simply “appeared,” “emerged,” “arose,” “gave rise to,” “burst onto the scene,” “evolved itself,” “derived,” “was on the way to becoming,” “radiated into,” “modified itself,” “became a miracle of evolution,” “was making the transition to,” “manufactured itself,” “evolution’s way of dealing with,” “derived emergent properties,” or “was lucky.”
How do words like “appeared” explain design? Just like magic, the use of this word invokes mysterious powers within unseen universes that are capable of leaping over enormous scientific obstacles without having to provide any scientific consideration for how a particular physical result was achieved. Magic words convey wish-like convictions that if evolutionists just believe deeply enough, their explanations must be true and someday will be true—though currently resisted by all scientific evidence. Explaining design by believing it “arose” appeals to imaginary special forces which help evolutionists to connect the evolutionary dots. But as in any magical kingdom, the connections are mental fantasies that are not grounded in reality.
Magic words lack explanatory power because they fail to tie real observations to detailed descriptions of how features of design originate. Claiming that novel biological features “burst onto the scene” abandons the need for experimental verification; indeed, the implication is to not even try. Take any biological observation. In evolutionary thinking, any observation can be transformed into a proof that explains its own existence by applying the magic phrase: “It exists because it is favored by natural selection.” In reality, observations are only observations and are neither proofs nor explanations.
Engineers, medical doctors, and other scientists [especially forensic scientists] who rely on studies or experiments do not use these kinds of words. Their products do not “emerge” but develop via thought-filled processes. They rightly call filling a knowledge gap with narrative stories “arm waving,” which calls to mind a stage magician.
In conversation with others, it would be difficult to overemphasize how important magic words are to evolutionary theory. Remark on how these words pervade elite journals like Science, popular magazines like Scientific American, and television shows like NOVA. “Magic words” pour from evolutionary literature like water over Niagara Falls. Challenge your listener to carefully observe the communication in these forums, noting how many paragraphs or statements pass without the use of these words. They are the lifeblood of the evolutionary community’s most profound and highest-quality scientific literature.
Evolutionists Insist Chance Alone Produces Design.
People should be educated about the central—but cleverly de-emphasized—dogma of evolution, that complex design is a wholly chance outcome of natural processes operating in a mindless, self-contained system that does not determine need or purpose in advance, and sets no direction. Distinguished science historian Jacques Barzun described the key elements of evolution as “the sum total of the accidents of life acting upon the sum total of the accidents of variation” leading to a “completely mechanistic and material system”16—i.e., one with no God.
In 1995, the influential National Association of Biology Teachers crafted a definitive “Statement on the Teaching of Evolution” that affirmed the centrality of chance. Their first tenet read, “The diversity of life on Earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.”
Newsweek summed up the view of Harvard’s renowned paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould:
Why did some lineages survive while most perished? There is no obvious reason, says Gould. The survivors were not simpler or more complex, more generalized or specialized, more numerous or superior in any obvious way; …The obvious answer, but one which most people instinctively resist, is that they were lucky.
Not only is there instinctive resistance to this answer, but it is intellectually distasteful to credit blind luck for complex designs. People experientially know designers are—without exception—the real cause. Teachers of evolution, therefore, do not attempt to get people to swallow in one big gulp a single colossal chance explanation. Instead, they adroitly assert that what seems like a huge chance biological event is simply the cumulative effect of countless tiny lucky events arising over enormous time periods in primitive life forms’ descendants. People relate readily to coincidental, almost happenstance, events. If these are coupled to staggeringly long timescales, biological wonders that are intuitively impossible…well, might just happen.
To counteract this thinking, offer a dose of reality. Point out that scientists never actually observe random DNA mistakes accumulating to generate from scratch the instructions necessary to build the type of complexity seen in biological structures.
Learning a Short Example
Do major science journals overcome barriers to evolution by using jargon and magical concepts to hurdle them in a single bound? Yes, as typified in the Archives of Ophthalmology’s account for the origin of the eye lens:
Lenses in different species may originate from different tissues in the embryo. But no matter what the source tissue, the substance that makes up the lens body must show a graded difference in density: greater in the center with a resulting higher index of refraction, less dense in the periphery with a lower index of refraction. This has been evolution’s way of dealing with spherical aberration, a particularly pressing problem.
How did evolution deal with it? The “complex genetic programs were lying in wait” to build all eye structures, including the lens proteins which were “recruited” via “molecular opportunism” to perform totally new functions since “evolution uses what is available. It is a consummate recycler.” Really?
The graded density of lens proteins—a great design feature—overcomes spherical aberration by allowing light entering through any spot of the lens to focus to a clear point (good vision) rather than many points (poor vision). Evolutionists should also consider that lens proteins just happen to be shaped and arranged to allow the lens to change profile to focus images from near or far—provided it is suspended precisely behind the pupil by hundreds of surrounding ligaments attached on one end to a special lens capsule and the other end to a circular muscle anchored to the retina. Indeed, hundreds of other design features could be listed which are better explained as resulting from a real designer.
Pulling It All Together
A quick response to a question of why evolution is not a satisfactory explanation for design might be:
I’ve been less than persuaded by what I was taught in school and on educational programs. Leading evolutionists insist that the mutational mechanism of evolution is random with respect to any goal. I have never observed a process driven by chance which absolutely excludes intelligent oversight to produce features of design. From what I read and see on TV, evolutionists jump over details by using magical words like “arose,” “appeared,” “gave rise to,” and “evolved itself” to explain how chance produces design. Even the leading journal for eye doctors recently used those words to describe eye evolution. The engineering feats I see are always the result of real designers, so I enjoy being free from the need to rely on the vague, non-scientific words evolutionists use.
This illustrates why evolution, as only a historical narrative, is different from other types of science that use real experiments. I find it hard to substitute stories for direct observations. I also enjoy freedom from being forced to call design “an illusion”‘—a poor reason—simply because it excludes divine intervention.
By helping people understand the best explanation for the origin of design, they can be influenced to see Christ as their Creator, just as the Bible says: “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made” (Romans 1:20).
For all those believers who would like some additional contrary points to the theory of evolution:
The Folly of Design without Purpose
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made” (Romans 1:20).
This paper examines the critical importance of a designer’s purpose, which guides the designer’s decision-making process whenever he or she designs and/or makes something new.
A construction contractor struggling to prevent a failed project criticized his designer as “flying by the seat of his pants,” meaning that he was simply making up stuff as the project progressed. Projects that lack clearly defined purpose or key design objectives generally fail. Purpose and design are inseparable.
Only a foolish architect would propose a project devoid of purpose. So it is astounding how explanations of nature’s design by evolutionary theorists—a career field that never designs anything—not only intentionally decouple purpose and design, but are presented as something to boast about.
That thinking by evolutionists was predictable. According to Romans 1, nature’s design is so clear, so obvious, and so understandable that people of all ages in all cultures can easily see the Lord’s “eternal power and Godhead.” The one who actively suppresses this truth becomes a God-denier, an act that leaves him “without excuse.”
The Bible adds another valuable insight that is useful in any conversation about the origin of nature’s design. Truth suppressors who profess themselves to be wise actually become fools. One certain reality is that evolutionary explanations of nature’s design will invariably be foolish—they cannot escape this—and everyone else just needs to be mindful to look.
Is it possible to know where a conversation will end up—without fail—right from the beginning? Yes. This useful assurance will help believers who worry that evolutionists will produce a “killer” explanation that crushes creationist thinking. True evolutionists must deny purpose in nature. Since design and purpose are inseparable, they violate this principle at their peril. Just as purposeless construction projects fail, evolutionary thinking forces failed scientific explanations—leaving only incoherent or mystical stories.
The First Step to Incoherence: Deny Nature’s Purpose
The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology states that “engineering design is the process of devising a system, component, or process to meet desired needs. It is a decision-making process (often iterative), in which the basic science and mathematics and engineering sciences are applied to convert resources optimally to meet a stated objective.”
The centrality of purpose to design is emphasized twice. Purpose initiates design processes, and designs are constrained to meet the purpose.
Evolutionists choose not to accept nature’s purpose since purpose affirms intent, willful decisions, or other attributes of personality, and only God is big enough to implement a purpose for earth. Thus, evolutionists must eschew “teleology,” the study of purpose in nature. But the purpose-recognition instinct is so strong, biologists struggle to escape it. Evolutionist David Hanke complained:
Biology is sick. Fundamentally unscientific modes of thought are increasingly accepted….[T]he heart of the problem is that we persist in making (literally) sense of a world that we know to be senseless by attributing subjective values to the objects in it, values that have no basis in reality…. [I]t is no longer acceptable to think of biological objects as having any purpose because the overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion is that they were not designed and built by a Creator (a mental construct necessary to inject a human sense of purpose into existence) with purposes in mind for them. Instead we believe (I’ll put that as strongly as I can) they are products of Darwinian evolution.
For evolutionism, design must somehow arise from mindless properties of matter. The belief that nothing exists outside of matter is called “materialism.” Would evolutionists persist in this mindset unfazed, even knowing that excluding purpose is toxic to sensible explanations? It seems so. Evolutionary authority Richard Lewontin is candid about this materialistic implication:
We have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism…we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes…that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
Learning a Short Example
Do evolutionists really maintain explanations that are “counter-intuitive” and “mystifying to the uninitiated”? Explaining the universe’s origin, cosmologist Stephen Hawking says:
Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist….It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.
Another theorist detailed why Hawking’s views are plausible:
Then there’s the idea of inflation, which predicts that an extremely tiny region of space can blow up into a universe-sized domain. Modern cosmologists believe that inflation, once it starts, can keep going forever, continually creating new “pocket universes” with different conditions in each one.
Theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss adds:
So if we can explain a raindrop, why can’t we explain a universe? Mr. Hawking based his argument on the possible existence of extra dimensions—and perhaps an infinite number of universes, which would indeed make the spontaneous appearance of a universe like ours seem almost trivial.
In biology, the National Academy of Sciences solved the origins dilemma for how molecular machines got all of their parts at the right time and place:
He proposed that simple “core” machines were established in the first eukaryotes by drawing on pre-existing bacterial proteins that had previously provided distinct functions. Subsequently, and in a stepwise process in keeping with Darwinian evolution, additional modules would have been added to the core machines to enhance their function.
Evolutionist Kathryn Applegate of BioLogos joins in: “The bacterial flagellum may look like an outboard motor, but there is at least one profound difference: the flagellum assembles spontaneously, without the help of any conscious agent.” Acknowledging that “the self-assembly of such a complex machine almost defies the imagination,” she justifies shrugging off this difficulty since “natural forces work ‘like magic.’”
Then there’s natural selection’s clever abilities to evolve systems: “The discovery that the hemoglobins of jawed and jawless vertebrates were invented independently provides powerful testimony to the ability of natural selection to cobble together similar design solutions using different starting materials.”Or how humans inherited basic parts of their nervous system from sponges: “‘Evolution can take these “off-the-shelf” components and put them together in new and interesting ways,’ said study leader Kenneth Kosik….Other genes would also have had to evolve or to have been co-opted to create complex nervous systems, such as our own.”
After studying a pivotal fossil, Britain’s top science journal explained its evolutionary ancestry:
This forces us to infer much longer ghost lineages for tetrapods and elpistostegids [lobe-finned fish] than the body fossil record suggests….(Ghost lineages are those that must have existed at a particular time, according to the phylogeny, but which are not represented by fossils at that time.)
What about humans? In jocular evolutionary speculation, Oliver Curry expects future genetic-based classes of humans will emerge:
People would become choosier about their sexual partners, causing humanity to divide into sub-species….The descendants of the genetic upper class would be tall, slim, healthy, attractive, intelligent, and creative and a far cry from the “underclass” humans who would have evolved into dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like creatures.
Evolutionary theorists appear to build one incoherent or mysterious explanation upon another—an “uninitiated” contractor might be tempted to conclude that they are flying by the seat of their pants.
Pulling It All Together
The best explanation for design remains the main issue. Is it real or only apparent? True evolutionary explanations for apparent design must separate two things that cannot be disconnected: purpose and design.
Should Christians feel threatened by a foolish worldview that inevitably produces counterintuitive explanations that appeal to an infinitude of self-creating universes where an unobserved force—“natural selection”—co-opts discrete, off-the-shelf molecular parts and cobbles together complex machines that self-assemble “like magic”, eventually emerging, after a long trail of “ghost lineages”, as organisms which, by the year 3000, will give rise to dimwitted goblins coexisting with their cousins—genetically superior attractive humans?
“Why don’t you believe in evolution?” A totally rational response is: “Explanations that assert that the diversity of life on earth is the outcome of a blind purposeless process are ridiculous. I have no desire to engage in self-delusion that the exquisite features of design seen in nature are all an illusion. A far better explanation is that the Lord Jesus Christ created each kind of organism with inherent capabilities to diversify in order to fill environments on the earth…which they do remarkably well.”
Taken from rational wiki(worth the look incase people have been swayed by Tom’s illogical reasoning)
Burden of proof
Burden of proof (or onus probandi in Latin) is the obligation that somebody presenting a new or remarkable idea has to provide evidence to support it. In a scientific context evidence is experimental or empirical data (although in some branches, well thought out mathematics may suffice). Once some evidence has been presented, it is up to the opposing “side” to disprove the evidence presented or explain why it may not be adequate. For example, in identifying a chemical compound, an analyst may present a spectrum to support their hypothesis but a reviewer may point out that it is insufficient, explain why by offering an alternative interpretation and state more data is needed, usually suggesting specific data that would be required. This sort of procedure happens constantly in the scientific method, repeating until everyone is happy that the data and explanation match.
Denialists of evolution and global warming have a habit of merely ignoring evidence and claiming that the burden of proof still rests with the proponents of those concepts. Debates frequently descend into arguments about which side the burden of proof lies with.
“extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.
[edit] God
Some theists maintain that unless atheists can disprove the existence of a god, or gods, their position is untenable. It does, however, depend on which of the many thousands of mankind’s gods one has in mind; strangely, such theists cheerfully accept the arguments against every god except their own preferred one(s).
On like lines, some anti-theists maintain that because theists cannot prove the existence of their chosen god or gods, their position is untenable. A similar fallacy, from the opposite direction.
The burden of proof lies with whoever is making the assertion. If there’s no evidence either way, it’s a matter of faith. Expressing a personal belief / disbelief in the existence of a certain god / goddess is sound enough, but claiming their opinion is factual or denouncing the opponent’s claim as false without any proof supporting one idea or disproving the other is fallacious. While an Unfalsifiable claim / hypothesis can be proven neither right nor wrong, it is reasonable to dismiss it as non-factual if it lacks logical supporting evidence.
Still- Good article, my view that you can find God without religion has never changed.
You haven’t given me any evidence, just lies from a creationist website. Young Earth creationists can’t know for sure how long the gaps between generations in the Bible are. They have no idea what knowledge actually is and no idea what science is, just what they have been told by Christian apologist books who make a living from lying and making money. Looks like I won the debate but it’s not a happy win because they are still people with a deluded view of reality out there who will refuse to look at any evidence that proves them wrong.
“Believing the ENTIRE Bible is the word of god and that everything it claims is the literal truth and should be followed to this day.”
I believe the entire Bible is the revealed Word of God. I believe what it says in the normal context of literature. I take history as history, prophecy as prophecy, poems as poems, parables as parables, etc.
“Well most of the laws in the Bible are unjust so obviously not from God.”
Since your worldview doesn’t allow for absolute morals, your statement regarding something being unjust doesn’t make sense.
” And I’ve explained faith is not a good reason to have morals.”
And I agree whole-heartedly. Absolute moral standards come only from God.
“God might not have to prove anything to me but Christians do.”
No, Christians don’t have to prove anything to you. Neither does God. He’s already given you all you need to know he exists. You are denying it. God said, “The fool has said in his own heart there is no God.” I believe him completely.
“According to that logic you must accept the claims of other religions too because they have not been proven wrong.”
I’ve already given you examples which prove some other religions are wrong. I don’t care to prove all of them wrong to you since the focus here has been on the God of the Bible. Your turn to prove Him wrong.
“So claiming to be the truth is enough for you to accept the person is the only truth?”
When Jesus Christ says it, I’d be a fool not to believe. “The fool has said . . . . .”
“We have evidence, facts and reason. We have enough to have a basis for morality and knowledge. You have faith.”
That’s a nice statement, but what is your proof that you do? Since you have no set standard of morality and everything is evolving, including knowledge, you can’t even understand that evidence, facts, or reason are. They may all evolve into something else tomorrow.
” I’m sure you can. I can keep posting evidence from science and you will continue to quote from some made up website.”
That’s about the 20th straw man you’ve created. We should all believe YOU because you say the websites are made up? Straw man after straw man. And how do you know you’ve given evidence when your worldview keeps evolving? Tomorrow your evidence may be something else.
“I read it to which is why I’m no longer a Christian.”
You’ll notice I said the book I recommended (Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels), not the Bible.
“ So where is the age of the Earth in the Bible?”
Check out the genealogies. While there may be some short (as in a few hundred years) gaps, they check out at between 6,000 and 10,000 years. (Exactly what a great deal of science proves.)
“That’s about as likely as you reading god is not great.”
Fine Seon. You’ve repeatedly asked for proof that evolution is a myth. I give you an excellent resource and you refuse to read it. Sorry but you’ll have to find someone else you can not listen to. My time is too valuable to spend hours giving reasonable answers to someone God has declared to be a fool. Keep scoffing and enjoy it while you can. You will find that life is very short but that an eternity knowing you were wrong is a very long time.
“You’ll need to define “fundamental view” and “literal” for me to answer you. ”
Believing the ENTIRE Bible is the word of god and that everything it claims is the literal truth and should be followed to this day.
“You know, it’s not up to you or me to determine if God’s laws are just. We do not have his omniscience. He is God and we are not.”
Well most of the laws in the Bible are unjust so obviously not from God.
“Either you didn’t answer me or your “Lol” means you intend to just laugh off any consideration of turning from your sins and trusting Christ. Which is it? ”
No I was laughing at your point because it was true.
“The Bible has 750,000 words and over 31,100 verses. There are many people who simply want to argue the validity of all 31,100 of them while never really desiring to find the truth. Honestly, are you one of those? Because there is only so much time and there are other people out there who really want to seek the truth with an open mind.”
When one of the few of the 750,000 words has kill gays and that women should shut up and church and can’t teach then yes I am one of those.
“This is more ground we’ve covered before. I’m getting the feeling you are more interested in scoffing and belittling than listening to what I’m saying and taking time to consider things. I’ve already carefully explained about 20 times that without God no one can have morals because their basis for morals keeps shifting. What part of that don’t you want to understand? I know that God is God. He created all things including me and I reverence him for that. I love him for making me and protecting me and giving me eternal life. Out of my deep respect and love for him, I do the best I can to please him.”
And I’ve explained faith is not a good reason to have morals.
“Look at it this way Seon: You and those like you want to set yourself up as judge and jury over God Almighty. You want him to prove himself to you and give you all sorts of evidence to convince you that he is who he says he is while you sit back on your high and mighty to “decide” if you’ll accept the evidence. But I have news for you Seon, you aren’t the judge or the jury; God is. He doesn’t have to prove anything—he’s already made himself clear through your conscience, through creation, and through his written word the Bible. You can deny him, scoff at him, and ridicule him. But frankly, you don’t have any idea who you’re messing with. ”
God might not have to prove anything to me but Christians do.
One example. We are all just a brain in a vault. You have no idea what you are dealing with when you are laughing at this idea but it is up to you to prove me wrong.
“In the U.S., a person standing trial for crimes is considered innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the one who says the person committed a crime. In a similar way, God doesn’t have to prove that what he has done really happened. It is up to you to prove that he didn’t. I suggest it is you who needs a course in the burden of proof. But since God himself said, “The fool has said in his heart there is no God,” well, you take it from there.”
According to that logic you must accept the claims of other religions too because they have not been proven wrong.
“That’s correct; the truth is always the truth. Jesus said, “I am the truth.” So what does that tell you?”
So claiming to be the truth is enough for you to accept the person is the only truth?
“But you see, you have no basis for morality, for knowledge, and you’ve now added another thing that unbelievers share—you have no way of even knowing what truth is. In your world where everything keeps evolving, what is true today may not be true tomorrow. God’s truths are unchanging and are therefore the measuring stick by which we can know the truth.”
We have evidence, facts and reason. We have enough to have a basis for morality and knowledge. You have faith.
“Instead of responding directly to the answer I gave you that God couldn’t have used evolution because he specifically told us that death came into the world because of Adam’s sin, you change the subject.”
Adam and Eve still could have been the first human’s. If you buy into that stuff.
“If I tell you, “It took me one day to accomplish the task; evening and morning it took me one day,” just how long maximum would that indicate to you? If God isn’t making it clear enough that one day is 24 hours, compare Genesis’ days of creation with Exodus 20—“Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.” Based on this passage that tells us we should work 6 days and rest on the 7th, how long do you suppose each day of creation was?”
It still could have been time periods and god still could have chilled out after the 6th “Day”
“No it doesn’t. Evidence by itself doesn’t prove something. The evidence must be carefully considered in light of ALL the evidence to reveal the truth of the matter. (That’s why murder trials often take months to conclude—there is a lot of evidence to consider.) Your “evidence” of stars being billions of light years away or fossil records in and of themselves do not prove everything just evolved over billions of years. I can give you reasons that your “proof” is not necessarily proof.”
I’m sure you can. I can keep posting evidence from science and you will continue to quote from some made up website.
“”Notice my note says there are NINE PhD scientists who contributed in their own areas of expertise. Afraid to read it with an open mind? It PROVES evolutionary “proofs” to be wrong.””
I fear it about as much as I fear watching 911 loose change.
“Yes—the Bible.
And are you going to read the book I recommended since I’m sure you want to have all the facts before coming to a conclusion?”
I read it to which is why I’m no longer a Christian. So where is the age of the Earth in the Bible?
“Get the book and read it.”
That’s about as likely as you reading god is not great.
“And after people flying to the moon, humans coming from an egg and a sperm, viewing people on a glass screen from half-way around the world, and transplanting hearts, I’ve determined they are false. How foolish.”
Those are wonders created by men, you have it the other way round. It’s foolish to believe in fairy tales.
“I thought science had all the answers. Do you mean science is “evolving” too?”
As I explained knowledge is always true. Sometimes science gets it wrong but it will always be closer to the truth then faith.
“Well, I can’t really address that because so far God and the Bible haven’t been proven wrong. Oh, and since the only way to prove something wrong is to look at all the evidence, when are you going to read that book and carefully study Answers In Genesis, Creation Ministries International, and Institute For Creation Research so that you’ll have all the evidence from both sides to consider?”
When you read god is not great by Christopher hitchens. Books don’t prove anything, science does. Believing in something that can’t be proven or disproven is not a reason we should reject the evidence and accept it based on blind faith.
“Dozens. Check the web sites above. You see, you love to make straw men and then tear them down. You’re suggesting that all of the thousands of scientists who believe in creation are inept charlatans or something so you refuse to consider their work and findings.”
No scientists can still have faith and leave that faith out of the lab. But no true scientist would ever believe the Earth was 10,000 years old.
“Every one of those things is thoroughly addressed from the creation worldview. Most of the evolutionist’s view of those same areas of study are badly flawed. I’ve already mentioned the DNA-protein flaw. ”
Yep it’s all bible magic.
“But Seon, if you are simply going to ignore every bit of evidence for creation out of hand before even inspecting it, then there really is no reason to continue these long, drawn-out posts. I mean, what’s your point? I’ve looked at both sides and personally find the evidence overwhelmingly on the side of creation. It’s funny—creationists can readily and objectively refute nearly all of the evolutionist’s claims, but evolutionists can only demean and slander creationists without giving any objective reasons that the creation evidence is flawed. Why is that?”
We can easily disprove creationism, just present the evidence for evolution and we can easily prove the Earth is older than 10,000 years old. You just ignore the evidence. I could get at this all week and show you where to look but in the end I just won’t be able to convince you or any fundamental. At least scientists admit they are wrong.
“Yes, they’ll continue to murder their babies even though God said, “You shall not murder.” So that makes it OK?
Let’s take your thought to the next level—Since like it or not people will steal, why don’t you just remove all the locks from your house and your car so that the thief won’t injure themselves breaking a window.”
Because stealing won’t affect the health of women.
“That’s because you don’t believe what God says. You also fail to understand that a woman in OT times who was raped was then considered an outcast of SOCIETY, not God. She would likely starve to death as a result. God stepped in to say that at least the rapist should be held liable for his actions and have to take care of the woman for the rest of her life. But based on what you’ve articulated, I’m sure your humanistic lack of absolute morals won’t agree with that. Better the woman starve to death.”
No they held those misogamist views because of faith. If God really cared about raped women he would say rape is a sin and women should never be blamed.
“Seon, if you hold Christians (that includes me) and God in such disdain, why are you wasting your time and mine on these posts? Are you just looking for a good laugh? (Man, I fear for you.)”
I was disappointed you didn’t answer this question.
“Because we’re commanded to judge others who are out of line with God—such as you Seon. And God WILL judge his creation, including YOU.”
So are you saying you are without sin and as perfect as Jesus?
“We are commanded by the Lord Jesus Christ to forgive those who do something against us, whether they ask for forgiveness or not. I forgive you for your anti-God, anti-Christian comments. I also pity you because you don’t know what you’re doing.”
I’m not anti Christian just anti delusion. If faith makes people a good person and they accept science then I have nothing against them.
“Yea, they don’t like having their sins revealed (like cockroaches don’t like the lights turned on) and they would rather live in disobedience to God. Each of them will be judged by God accordingly. Jesus said, “Many will come to me on that day . . . . and I will say ‘depart from me you sinners, I never knew you.’””
Being in a abusive marriage is not a sin and no one deserves that. No matter what.
“A perfect example of humanistic morality—it just keeps right on changing. Sorry, but God’s standard doesn’t change.”
Again killing people who work on the Sabbath…
“What about gravity? Are you telling me that it’s a theory? No, it’s scientifically proven. It’s observable and duplicatible. It’s also an absolute that God created as part of the universe. Imagine if we couldn’t depend on gravity to be consistent . . . .”
And so are all these other “theories”
“Because your beliefs about everything may not be true and they may evolve right out from under you.”
Everything is still evolving. That won’t change the fact everything is still evolving even if species do change in millions of years.
“You’ve just proved it yourself. How do you know it’s a result of the big bang happening 14 billion years ago? Were you there? Did you cause the big bang? Or are you just taking someone else’s word for it? Since that’s the case, you only “think” you “know.””
Nope I accepted the evidence that is out there. Of course you’d just say it is evidence for creation so I won’t bother.
“In the case of the gospels, Jesus spoke directly to them.”
How do you know this? The earliest gospel was written 30 years later.
“”In much of the Old Testament, it was either in person or in dreams and visions that were distinctly from God and proven by fulfilled prophecies which only God would know beforehand. ”
So the authors of the old testament books just remembered every aspect of their dreams and it remained completely the same up until the books were written down without any alterations? How do they know it wasn’t just a dream? How do they know it was from God?
“The Holy Spirit speaks to me through my spirit. Can you prove that He doesn’t?”
Nope but you haven’t proven I can’t fly.
“the virgin law seems like one of those laws that wouldn’t have been needed because it would have been so hard to fake. But if you take a fundamental view of the Bible shouldn’t you support a similar law? I’m glad mine is not a literal one.”
You’ll need to define “fundamental view” and “literal” for me to answer you.
You know, it’s not up to you or me to determine if God’s laws are just. We do not have his omniscience. He is God and we are not.
“Lol yeah good point. You answer some questions and I have others and so on.”
Either you didn’t answer me or your “Lol” means you intend to just laugh off any consideration of turning from your sins and trusting Christ. Which is it?
The Bible has 750,000 words and over 31,100 verses. There are many people who simply want to argue the validity of all 31,100 of them while never really desiring to find the truth. Honestly, are you one of those? Because there is only so much time and there are other people out there who really want to seek the truth with an open mind.
“I mean we choose to adhere to those God given morals (if infect they were God given)you do so out of fear or wanting to suck up to the big guy.”
This is more ground we’ve covered before. I’m getting the feeling you are more interested in scoffing and belittling than listening to what I’m saying and taking time to consider things. I’ve already carefully explained about 20 times that without God no one can have morals because their basis for morals keeps shifting. What part of that don’t you want to understand? I know that God is God. He created all things including me and I reverence him for that. I love him for making me and protecting me and giving me eternal life. Out of my deep respect and love for him, I do the best I can to please him.
“Lol Satan also used a kangaroo to speak to Paul. Were you there? Prove it didn’t happen. You need a crash course in the burden of proof.”
Look at it this way Seon: You and those like you want to set yourself up as judge and jury over God Almighty. You want him to prove himself to you and give you all sorts of evidence to convince you that he is who he says he is while you sit back on your high and mighty to “decide” if you’ll accept the evidence. But I have news for you Seon, you aren’t the judge or the jury; God is. He doesn’t have to prove anything—he’s already made himself clear through your conscience, through creation, and through his written word the Bible. You can deny him, scoff at him, and ridicule him. But frankly, you don’t have any idea who you’re messing with.
In the U.S., a person standing trial for crimes is considered innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the one who says the person committed a crime. In a similar way, God doesn’t have to prove that what he has done really happened. It is up to you to prove that he didn’t. I suggest it is you who needs a course in the burden of proof. But since God himself said, “The fool has said in his heart there is no God,” well, you take it from there.
” No truth is always truth. For example, we once thought the Earth was flat. We proved our self wrong. We once thought the Earth was the center of the universe. We proved our self wrong there. While our perceptions of reality may change knowledge and truth never does. We were just wrong.”
That’s correct; the truth is always the truth. Jesus said, “I am the truth.” So what does that tell you?
But you see, you have no basis for morality, for knowledge, and you’ve now added another thing that unbelievers share—you have no way of even knowing what truth is. In your world where everything keeps evolving, what is true today may not be true tomorrow. God’s truths are unchanging and are therefore the measuring stick by which we can know the truth.
“So what does that tell you about the 7 days? Could days have been more of a measure of time? Or did God just take 6 days to create the universe?”
Instead of responding directly to the answer I gave you that God couldn’t have used evolution because he specifically told us that death came into the world because of Adam’s sin, you change the subject.
If I tell you, “It took me one day to accomplish the task; evening and morning it took me one day,” just how long maximum would that indicate to you? If God isn’t making it clear enough that one day is 24 hours, compare Genesis’ days of creation with Exodus 20—“Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.” Based on this passage that tells us we should work 6 days and rest on the 7th, how long do you suppose each day of creation was?
“The evidence that I showed you proves it is old.”
No it doesn’t. Evidence by itself doesn’t prove something. The evidence must be carefully considered in light of ALL the evidence to reveal the truth of the matter. (That’s why murder trials often take months to conclude—there is a lot of evidence to consider.) Your “evidence” of stars being billions of light years away or fossil records in and of themselves do not prove everything just evolved over billions of years. I can give you reasons that your “proof” is not necessarily proof.
“Notice my note says there are NINE PhD scientists who contributed in their own areas of expertise. Afraid to read it with an open mind? It PROVES evolutionary “proofs” to be wrong.”
“Is that what convinced you the Earth was young? A book?”
Yes—the Bible.
And are you going to read the book I recommended since I’m sure you want to have all the facts before coming to a conclusion?
“Because there is no evidence. Ok DNA is a interesting case but what else?”
Get the book and read it.
“Again talking snakes, man living inside a big fish, women coming from a man’s rib, a magical ark and after the magic ark ride the animals being magically teleported back to where they came from and the many other impossible stories. I have determined they are false.”
And after people flying to the moon, humans coming from an egg and a sperm, viewing people on a glass screen from half-way around the world, and transplanting hearts, I’ve determined they are false. How foolish.
“Scientists are wrong, they once thought the universe always existed but when they were proven wrong they admitted their mistakes.”
I thought science had all the answers. Do you mean science is “evolving” too?
“If people of faith are proven wrong they will clutch to their mistaken beliefs despite the overwhelming evidence that proves them wrong.”
Well, I can’t really address that because so far God and the Bible haven’t been proven wrong. Oh, and since the only way to prove something wrong is to look at all the evidence, when are you going to read that book and carefully study Answers In Genesis, Creation Ministries International, and Institute For Creation Research so that you’ll have all the evidence from both sides to consider?
“Really? Which reputable biologists speak out against mr Dawkins? No Answers in Genesis!took apart that Sarfatti guy.”
Dozens. Check the web sites above. You see, you love to make straw men and then tear them down. You’re suggesting that all of the thousands of scientists who believe in creation are inept charlatans or something so you refuse to consider their work and findings.
“Because they are not facts and the evidence is overwhelming, we have fossil evidence, geographical disruption, the similarity in dna and behaviors, Continental distribution, Distribution of marsupials that are only found in Australia (why didn’t God create them anywhere else?), also google evolution of the horse and Transition from fish to amphibians. We don’t need faith to be in awe of an amazing universe, science is much more amazing then some holy book.”
Every one of those things is thoroughly addressed from the creation worldview. Most of the evolutionist’s view of those same areas of study are badly flawed. I’ve already mentioned the DNA-protein flaw.
But Seon, if you are simply going to ignore every bit of evidence for creation out of hand before even inspecting it, then there really is no reason to continue these long, drawn-out posts. I mean, what’s your point? I’ve looked at both sides and personally find the evidence overwhelmingly on the side of creation. It’s funny—creationists can readily and objectively refute nearly all of the evolutionist’s claims, but evolutionists can only demean and slander creationists without giving any objective reasons that the creation evidence is flawed. Why is that?
“But like it or not women will have abortions even if it is outlawed again. Wouldn’t you rather it be done in safe conditions?”
Yes, they’ll continue to murder their babies even though God said, “You shall not murder.” So that makes it OK?
Let’s take your thought to the next level—Since like it or not people will steal, why don’t you just remove all the locks from your house and your car so that the thief won’t injure themselves breaking a window.
“Blaming the victim, only faith will do that. I find rape barbaric and I don’t think it was because of sin or karma.”
That’s because you don’t believe what God says. You also fail to understand that a woman in OT times who was raped was then considered an outcast of SOCIETY, not God. She would likely starve to death as a result. God stepped in to say that at least the rapist should be held liable for his actions and have to take care of the woman for the rest of her life. But based on what you’ve articulated, I’m sure your humanistic lack of absolute morals won’t agree with that. Better the woman starve to death.
“All the Christian websites and shows I watch just say we have to say sorry for our sins and confess them, what else?! Do a rain dance too?”
Seon, if you hold Christians (that includes me) and God in such disdain, why are you wasting your time and mine on these posts? Are you just looking for a good laugh? (Man, I fear for you.)
“But they can still never know for sure so why risk it?” Let God judge his creations.
Because we’re commanded to judge others who are out of line with God—such as you Seon. And God WILL judge his creation, including YOU.
“Yeah but you’d still have to be sure. Plus what if someone comes to you for forgiveness and you don’t forgive them? Remember the unforgiving servant.”
We are commanded by the Lord Jesus Christ to forgive those who do something against us, whether they ask for forgiveness or not. I forgive you for your anti-God, anti-Christian comments. I also pity you because you don’t know what you’re doing.
“Which is one reason why so many people are leaving the church.”
Yea, they don’t like having their sins revealed (like cockroaches don’t like the lights turned on) and they would rather live in disobedience to God. Each of them will be judged by God accordingly. Jesus said, “Many will come to me on that day . . . . and I will say ‘depart from me you sinners, I never knew you.’”
“I guess you mean by which standards do I use to determine what I disagree with. His stance on divorce is just old fashioned, now millions of people are divorced and remarried and still sincere Christians.”
A perfect example of humanistic morality—it just keeps right on changing. Sorry, but God’s standard doesn’t change.
“Really? What about gravity?”
What about gravity? Are you telling me that it’s a theory? No, it’s scientifically proven. It’s observable and duplicatible. It’s also an absolute that God created as part of the universe. Imagine if we couldn’t depend on gravity to be consistent . . . .
“I know everything is evolving, so how does that prove I don’t know everything?”
Because your beliefs about everything may not be true and they may evolve right out from under you.
“I know the universe is expanding as a result of the big bang happening 14 billion years ago, how does that prove I can’t know anything for sure?”
You’ve just proved it yourself. How do you know it’s a result of the big bang happening 14 billion years ago? Were you there? Did you cause the big bang? Or are you just taking someone else’s word for it? Since that’s the case, you only “think” you “know.”
“Right and how did they receive the message? Did God whisper in their ears?”
In the case of the gospels, Jesus spoke directly to them. In much of the Old Testament, it was either in person or in dreams and visions that were distinctly from God and proven by fulfilled prophecies which only God would know beforehand.
The Holy Spirit speaks to me through my spirit. Can you prove that He doesn’t?
“Last week at our local Planned Parenthood, a woman bled to death while having a “legal” abortion. It happens hundreds of times a year at abortion clinics. So where does that leave your argument? Come on now—think—If women didn’t have any abortions at all, how many of them would die having an abortion? I’ll give you 10 seconds to figure it out.”
But like it or not women will have abortions even if it is outlawed again. Wouldn’t you rather it be done in safe conditions? People die in surgery, should we then outlaw surgery?
“Their health or the life and death struggle of their baby?”
A fetus and like it or not they choose to bring it into this world.
“If you don’t or won’t recognize the difference between what God’s desire is and what he allows a sinful human race to do, we might as well put this point aside. The evils done against women were a result of their sinfulness and the people’s disobedience to the standards of God. When those events are properly preached, the evil acts of men are brought into focus in the hopes that rather than perpetrating those evils, man will follow God’s desired precepts and commands. From the second chapter of Genesis to the end of the New Testament, God’s desire is that women be revered and given a special place. Men are commanded to protect them and treat them as equals. I won’t go on further because I’m sure you will disagree. You simply do not seem to understand this particular point.”
Blaming the victim, only faith will do that. I find rape barbaric and I don’t think it was because of sin or karma.
“You’ve hit upon probably the main reason people who profess to be Christians seldom act like it—They’ve come to God for what they can get out of it. Love, forgiveness, feel-goodness—rather than coming to God not for what they can get out of it but for what they have done against the God who gave them life and sustains it. Because they never are brought face to face with their sins, they are told all they have to do is “believe” and God will forgive them. Their lives/actions don’t change, but they think they’re right with God. It’s frankly a disaster.”
All the Christian websites and shows I watch just say we have to say sorry for our sins and confess them, what else?! Do a rain dance too?
“By examining yourself and allowing the Holy Spirit to examine yourself. Believers have the Holy Spirit indwelling them to convey such information.”
But they can still never know for sure so why risk it? Let God judge his creations.
“That’s correct. So we better be confessed up before we start judging others.”
Yeah but you’d still have to be sure. Plus what if someone comes to you for forgiveness and you don’t forgive them? Remember the unforgiving servant.
“We don’t as far as day-to-day is concerned. But divorce is still a sin unless it is for infidelity.”
Which is one reason why so many people are leaving the church.
“So Jesus was wrong about the other 10%? How do you know which 10% is wrong?”
I guess you mean by which standards do I use to determine what I disagree with. His stance on divorce is just old fashioned, now millions of people are divorced and remarried and still sincere Christians.
“That’s according you because you are a humanistic evolutionist. As such you have standard by which to know if something is worth following or not. Tomorrow your ideas may “evolve” somewhere else.”
Like society has done to the Old Testament. If we followed the entire book America would be like Afghanistan under the Taliban.
“Slavery is not justified by God—merely tolerated to some extents. But you for some reason don’t see the difference. Toleration is not the same as condoning.”
But why didn’t he condemn it and say owning another human being is wrong? The dignity the Bible gives each human being should have been a give away.
“What evidence? Scientific theories? That isn’t evidence.”
Really? What about gravity?
“Actually Seon, because you are a humanistic evolutionist, you DO NOT have knowledge. You only think you have knowledge. In order to KNOW something, it must be something that will not change. Since you believe everything evolved and is evolving, you cannot KNOW anything for sure. ”
Faith is pretending to know the answers or convincing yourself you know them. I know everything is evolving, so how does that prove I don’t know everything? I know the universe is expanding as a result of the big bang happening 14 billion years ago, how does that prove I can’t know anything for sure?
“Straw man argument again. Make a statement like it’s a fact to prove your own point. You’re saying people 2000 years ago didn’t know anything? Again, that’s ridiculous. But even if they hadn’t a clue about anything, since the Bible was written by holy men who were instructed by the all-knowing Holy Spirit, the Bible would still be 100% true and accurate anyway.”
Right and how did they receive the message? Did God whisper in their ears?
“If the answers to that were given you, would you believe the New Testament, repent and put your trust in Jesus Christ? If not, what’s your point in asking them?
You see Seon, while I’m glad to answers questions, you continue to simply ask more and more questions without accepting any of the answers. Any of the questions you’re asking can more readily and speedily and completely be answered by simply searching the internet. ”
Lol yeah good point. You answer some questions and I have others and so on.
“Please explain which part of this statement you don’t understand: Without God’s absolute standard of morality, no one would have morals; because without God, morals would just be something that evolved and continue to evolve—changing over time.”
I mean we choose to adhere to those God given morals (if infect they were God given)you do so out of fear or wanting to suck up to the big guy.
“Why are you hung up on a few things like talking snakes? Satan spoke through a snake to deceive Eve. Were you there? Prove it otherwise.”
Lol Satan also used a kangaroo to speak to Paul. Were you there? Prove it didn’t happen. You need a crash course in the burden of proof.
“As an evolutionist, you couldn’t know “knowledge” if you saw it because for you, all knowledge is just something that keeps evolving so what you know today may evolve into something else tomorrow.”
No truth is always truth. For example, we once thought the Earth was flat. We proved our self wrong. We once thought the Earth was the center of the universe. We proved our self wrong there. While our perceptions of reality may change knowledge and truth never does. We were just wrong.
“That would be opposed to his own statements in Genesis regarding the creation of the world, and also that death didn’t come into the world until Adam sinned in the Garden. So there couldn’t have been millions of years of things evolving and dying prior to Adam and Eve.”
So what does that tell you about the 7 days? Could days have been more of a measure of time? Or did God just take 6 days to create the universe?
“People believe in an old-earth because of their pre-suppositions. When you pre-suppose the earth is billions of years old, you view all evidence through old-earth glasses. There is a great deal of evidence for a young earth, but evolutionists such as yourself refuse to look at it and can’t see the evidence in an unbiased frame of mind.”
The evidence that I showed you proves it is old.
“Notice my note says there are NINE PhD scientists who contributed in their own areas of expertise. Afraid to read it with an open mind? It PROVES evolutionary “proofs” to be wrong.”
Is that what convinced you the Earth was young? A book?
“You don’t know much about it but are willing to take only one side of the debate without objectively looking at the other side? Look at the other side objectively and among other things you’ll discover that natural selection has NOTHING TO DO with macro-evolution. That’s a common but absolutely wrong assumption tossed out by evolutionists.”
Because there is no evidence. Ok DNA is a interesting case but what else?
“One way is by investigating what it has to say and determining if it is false in any area.”
Again talking snakes, man living inside a big fish, women coming from a man’s rib, a magical ark and after the magic ark ride the animals being magically teleported back to where they came from and the many other impossible stories. I have determined they are false.
“Yeah, like believing for thousands of years that the earth was the center of the universe, that the earth was flat, that the appendix had no use in the body, etc. etc. etc. Scientists don’t have all that great a record about a lot of things, and they have this one wrong too. ”
Scientists are wrong, they once thought the universe always existed but when they were proven wrong they admitted their mistakes. If people of faith are proven wrong they will clutch to their mistaken beliefs despite the overwhelming evidence that proves them wrong.
“”Dr. Jonathan Sarfatti took apart Richard Dawkins book on evolution piece by piece. Richard Dawkins is even losing credibility within the evolution community.””
Really? Which reputable biologists speak out against mr Dawkins? No Answers in Genesis!took apart that Sarfatti guy.
“But A) Then why do you accept evolution? The evidence is full of holes. And B) Why won’t you objectively look at the facts that contradict evolution and show creation?”
Because they are not facts and the evidence is overwhelming, we have fossil evidence, geographical disruption, the similarity in dna and behaviors, Continental distribution, Distribution of marsupials that are only found in Australia (why didn’t God create them anywhere else?), also google evolution of the horse and Transition from fish to amphibians. We don’t need faith to be in awe of an amazing universe, science is much more amazing then some holy book.
Hey Tom, the virgin law seems like one of those laws that wouldn’t have been needed because it would have been so hard to fake. But if you take a fundamental view of the Bible shouldn’t you support a similar law? I’m glad mine is not a literal one.
Seon–
For your information, in case you’re interested in all the details concerning stoning a woman who lies about her virginity:
Requirements for a legal case
a) the girl had to be *presented* as a virgin. In other words, the man had to be informed explicitly that the woman was a virgin. The marrying of non-virgins is well-accounted in scripture, and permitted to most men under Mosaic Law.
b) the girl, having been presented as a virgin, had to be discovered by the husband that she was *not* a virgin
c) the parents were required by law to retain evidence of their daughter’s virginity.
d) if the parents presented such proof, the woman was exonerated. Otherwise, it would likely be assumed that she was guilty (as the husband and the parents alike could not attest to her virginity, there are the necessary two witnesses against her)
The legal process
a) the husband had to formally charge his wife with “misrepresentation” of her virginity (by her parents, presumably)
b) the husband had to then attend a legal proceeding with a duly-appointed authority (judge). This is required by Mosaic Law for all executions.
c) The evidence had to be heard – execution requiring at least two witnesses (already addressed)
d) The judge then decided the case
e) IF and ONLY IF the judge ruled that the woman was guilty, the judge was then required to pass sentence.
f) IF and ONLY IF the judge passed a sentence of execution could the woman then be executed.
So considering how difficult God made it – required it – to be to execute someone, I think it’s obvious that God was very concerned for the woman. God cares for us, or he would have said “anyone who feels sure someone has committed a capital offense should kill that someone at the first opportunity
“How do we know the churches actually knew Paul? How do we know the letters were written in the 1st century?”
If the answers to that were given you, would you believe the New Testament, repent and put your trust in Jesus Christ? If not, what’s your point in asking them?
You see Seon, while I’m glad to answers questions, you continue to simply ask more and more questions without accepting any of the answers. Any of the questions you’re asking can more readily and speedily and completely be answered by simply searching the internet.
“No, the point of man is to bring glory to God. But supposing the point was to multiply the species—aren’t abortionists defeating that main tenant of evolution?”
“We also have a sense of morals because we choose to have them not because we want to win favor with god.”
Please explain which part of this statement you don’t understand: Without God’s absolute standard of morality, no one would have morals; because without God, morals would just be something that evolved and continue to evolve—changing over time.
“Things like talking snakes? Yeah that’s good to go with.”
Why are you hung up on a few things like talking snakes? Satan spoke through a snake to deceive Eve. Were you there? Prove it otherwise.
“ I’ll take knowledge and evidence.”
As an evolutionist, you couldn’t know “knowledge” if you saw it because for you, all knowledge is just something that keeps evolving so what you know today may evolve into something else tomorrow.
“ God could have used evolution to create us.”
That would be opposed to his own statements in Genesis regarding the creation of the world, and also that death didn’t come into the world until Adam sinned in the Garden. So there couldn’t have been millions of years of things evolving and dying prior to Adam and Eve.
“There’s no evidence for a young Earth and people came to realize the age of the Earth due to observation and the evidence.”
People believe in an old-earth because of their pre-suppositions. When you pre-suppose the earth is billions of years old, you view all evidence through old-earth glasses. There is a great deal of evidence for a young earth, but evolutionists such as yourself refuse to look at it and can’t see the evidence in an unbiased frame of mind.
“Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels”. It’s edited by Robert Carter, Ph.D. Nine PhD scientists explain evolution’s fatal flaws in areas claimed to be its greatest strengths.”
One scientist verses how many?…
Notice my note says there are NINE PhD scientists who contributed in their own areas of expertise. Afraid to read it with an open mind? It PROVES evolutionary “proofs” to be wrong.
“Well I don’t know much about the evolution of DNA. But even if it does prove there’s a creator- it doesn’t deny evolution by natural selection. Just that God had a hand in it.”
You don’t know much about it but are willing to take only one side of the debate without objectively looking at the other side? Look at the other side objectively and among other things you’ll discover that natural selection has NOTHING TO DO with macro-evolution. That’s a common but absolutely wrong assumption tossed out by evolutionists.
“Ok how do you determine the Bible is true?”
One way is by investigating what it has to say and determining if it is false in any area.
“No but I find it hard to believe all those scientists who spent their life researching the evidence simply got it wrong.” Yeah, like believing for thousands of years that the earth was the center of the universe, that the earth was flat, that the appendix had no use in the body, etc. etc. etc. Scientists don’t have all that great a record about a lot of things, and they have this one wrong too.
“Yeah and check out “The magic of reality” by Richard Dawkins.”
Dr. Jonathan Sarfatti took apart Richard Dawkins book on evolution piece by piece. Richard Dawkins is even losing credibility within the evolution community.
“I only accept things with evidence.”
But A) Then why do you accept evolution? The evidence is full of holes. And B) Why won’t you objectively look at the facts that contradict evolution and show creation?
“Well that’s what will happen (women dying) if we outlaw abortion.”
Last week at our local Planned Parenthood, a woman bled to death while having a “legal” abortion. It happens hundreds of times a year at abortion clinics. So where does that leave your argument? Come on now—think—If women didn’t have any abortions at all, how many of them would die having an abortion? I’ll give you 10 seconds to figure it out.
“ I don’t like it, you don’t like it but women will find a way to abort their fetuses even in unsafe conditions. And I still support allowing women to get abortions due to health reasons.”
Their health or the life and death struggle of their baby?
“If the unadulterated word of god was preached more people would be drawn away from church. Especially women. If we take a fundamental view of the Bible then women are basically second class citizens who are just sold from their fathers to their husbands. Oh yeah and gays, witches, psychics, thieves, women who are not virgins on their wedding night are put to death.”
If you don’t or won’t recognize the difference between what God’s desire is and what he allows a sinful human race to do, we might as well put this point aside. The evils done against women were a result of their sinfulness and the people’s disobedience to the standards of God. When those events are properly preached, the evil acts of men are brought into focus in the hopes that rather than perpetrating those evils, man will follow God’s desired precepts and commands. From the second chapter of Genesis to the end of the New Testament, God’s desire is that women be revered and given a special place. Men are commanded to protect them and treat them as equals. I won’t go on further because I’m sure you will disagree. You simply do not seem to understand this particular point.
“See if you take it in a less literal approach and focus on the love and forgiveness, more people like me will be attracted to that message. To me Christianity is just about loving god and humanity and believing Jesus was the son of god who rose from the dead. All the rest is just dogma.”
You’ve hit upon probably the main reason people who profess to be Christians seldom act like it—They’ve come to God for what they can get out of it. Love, forgiveness, feel-goodness—rather than coming to God not for what they can get out of it but for what they have done against the God who gave them life and sustains it. Because they never are brought face to face with their sins, they are told all they have to do is “believe” and God will forgive them. Their lives/actions don’t change, but they think they’re right with God. It’s frankly a disaster.
“Yeah that’s the most quoted answer! How do you know you are right with God?”
By examining yourself and allowing the Holy Spirit to examine yourself. Believers have the Holy Spirit indwelling them to convey such information.
“ Didn’t he also say God will judge us by the same standards we use to judge everyone else?”
That’s correct. So we better be confessed up before we start judging others.
“ And how do we know the divorced women isn’t more godly then us?”
We don’t as far as day-to-day is concerned. But divorce is still a sin unless it is for infidelity.
“Yep and I agree with 90% of them. It’s hard not to.”
So Jesus was wrong about the other 10%? How do you know which 10% is wrong?
“Probably a good thing considering about 40% of the Bible is worth following.”
That’s according you because you are a humanistic evolutionist. As such you have standard by which to know if something is worth following or not. Tomorrow your ideas may “evolve” somewhere else.
“But exactly, that’s what happens when people take a fundamental view of the Bible. It’s the entire Bible is 100% true so that must mean slavery is justified. “
Slavery is not justified by God—merely tolerated to some extents. But you for some reason don’t see the difference. Toleration is not the same as condoning.
“I don’t have blind faith in anything, I examined the evidence.”
What evidence? Scientific theories? That isn’t evidence.
“I have knowledge.”
Actually Seon, because you are a humanistic evolutionist, you DO NOT have knowledge. You only think you have knowledge. In order to KNOW something, it must be something that will not change. Since you believe everything evolved and is evolving, you cannot KNOW anything for sure.
“You have faith in a book that was written over 2000 years ago by people with no knowledge. They still thought the Earth was flat.”
Straw man argument again. Make a statement like it’s a fact to prove your own point. You’re saying people 2000 years ago didn’t know anything? Again, that’s ridiculous. But even if they hadn’t a clue about anything, since the Bible was written by holy men who were instructed by the all-knowing Holy Spirit, the Bible would still be 100% true and accurate anyway.
“Yes at least 13 of them. They were written to numerous churches and individuals and there is not a single account of any of those churches or individuals reporting that Paul never existed. Most of the churches and individuals who received the letters knew Paul personally—some of the churches had been founded by Paul on his missionary journeys. The letters were almost immediately copied in order to be sent to other churches as well. Why would anyone want to copy a letter that was written by a fictitious person?”
How do we know the churches actually knew Paul? How do we know the letters were written in the 1st century?
“No, the point of man is to bring glory to God. But supposing the point was to multiply the species—aren’t abortionists defeating that main tenant of evolution?”
Yeah I don’t look at abortion lightly anymore- But see how non religious people have a right to be outraged by Nazi Germany? We also have a sense of morals because we choose to have them not because we want to win favor with god.
“That’s only an assumption. Think about it—at the beginning of the evolutionary process (according to what macro-evolutionists teach) all life started with a one-celled creature. It developed into sea creatures over millions of years and then into land creatures over millions more years, and slowly developed into human beings. So when the first pre-humans came into existence, unless there was one male and one female that evolved at exactly the same time, procreation of the species would have been impossible! The only “logical” answer is that prior to male and female there was only one sex that was able to reproduce within its own sex. So maybe that’s where we’re headed in the future—back to one sex. May everyone will become homosexual and men will have babies! (I hope this helps to show the absolute foolishness of evolutionary ideas.)”
I don’t know- Maybe. But we don’t know for now so for now we focus on the two sex system.
“Why sure, you can put forth any theory you want. Scientists theorize there could be life on other planets. Some people theorize human life on earth was planted here from outer space. But scientific theories, while they are a starting point to then try to scientifically prove or disprove the theory, are really just science fiction until proven otherwise. At the end of the day, theories are not science. Science is the observation and understanding of things.”
Is gravity just a theory? If you had the evidence to prove them wrong you could do it today.
“Since the Bible so greatly is in opposition to evolutionary theory, either one or the other is true. The law of contradiction says that when two things contradict each other they can’t both be true. (They could both be wrong, of course.) So when what we observe well matches the Bible’s account of things and evolutionary theory does not, I’ll go with the Bible.”
Things like talking snakes? Yeah that’s good to go with. I’ll take knowledge and evidence. It’s only a contradiction when you take a fundamental view of the Bible. God could have used evolution to create us.
“Great Brittan used to and they were the most powerful nation in the world. They then took God out of their society and look at them now. The U.S. has followed the same path.”
Well it’s a good thing to since “God’s law” has been used to persecute people like Alan Turing.
“The idea that apes and humans share a common ancestor is only a theory, not a scientific fact. The idea that all life came from a single celled organism is a theory, not a scientific fact. And the reason the millions of years idea came into existence in the first place was that it was the only way to explain the theory that all life evolved. Obviously it couldn’t have evolved over a short period, so millions of years was evoked to make the theory work. People who subscribe to the unscientific theory of evolution absolutely refuse to consider any alternative and therefore will not/cannot objectively consider the evidence for a young earth; and there is a multitude of evidence for a young earth. Every single day there is more evidence that DIS-proves the millions of years evolutionary theory, and man do the evolutionists go scrambling for alternative theories to fit the new evidence. Probably the greatest book to date that shows why evolution can’t be true is the new one titled, ”
There’s no evidence for a young Earth and people came to realize the age of the Earth due to observation and the evidence.
“Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels”. It’s edited by Robert Carter, Ph.D. Nine PhD scientists explain evolution’s fatal flaws in areas claimed to be its greatest strengths.”
One scientist verses how many?…
“Let me give you an example—Astronomers have spent billions of dollars over the last several decades searching for coded signals from outer space because they believe any coded signal will prove intelligent life exists “out there.” Over the last couple of decades, the science of DNA has opened up an incredible area of research which shows that DNA is a coded set of instructions for building life. It is vastly more intricate than anything that man has every discovered and everyday more of its amazing complexity is revealed. So how come a code from outer space will prove intelligence, but the code of DNA doesn’t prove “someone” created it—that it couldn’t possibly have evolved?”
Did you know that proteins are built from the information given by DNA, and DNA can’t exist without proteins? Therefore, one can’t have come into existence without the other. So what are the chances that these two codependent things simply evolved? Doesn’t it make much more sense that someone designed it that way and brought it into existence?”
Well I don’t know much about the evolution of DNA. But even if it does prove there’s a creator- it doesn’t deny evolution by natural selection. Just that God had a hand in it.
“By comparing it with the absolute perfect standard of truth in the Bible.”
Ok how do you determine the Bible is true?
“Not Bible magic but God’s divine control.
The majority is often wrong is it not? So majority is never proof of something’s truth.”
No but I find it hard to believe all those scientists who spent their life researching the evidence simply got it wrong. And with Bible magic anything can be explained. hey maybe the Earth is only 2,000 years old and god created it to appear as though we are 10,000 years old to you.
“Please get a copy of “Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels” and read the chapter on dating methods. They have been found to be wildly inaccurate. Here’s a Google for youself—Google “Prehistoric cave art depicting humans hunting dinosaurs.””
I knew you’d focus on one peace of evidence but ignore the rest. Google “Dinosaurs Among Us skeptoid” they are other sides of the story too.
“I don’t but learned PhD’d scientists do. Check out the book I recommended.”
Yeah and check out “The magic of reality” by Richard Dawkins. I have a mortgage but would still be happy to send you one.
“And what is wrong with that interpretation? Is it illogical based on all Jesus’ teachings about love? Is there some reason it can’t be interpreted that way other than that you don’t?”
Well it clearly says hate your parents. But I take a non fundamental view of the Bible so I take that passage in context like you said and compare it with the time and when it was written families were being split up because of the new faith, so maybe the authors attributed that to Jesus so Christians at the time would have an easier time choosing the Christian community and their families.
“A lack of evidence is no evidence. That’s another silly one Seon.”
Lol I only accept things with evidence.
“You’re fiddling with the law of contradiction. You can’t worship false idols as god and worship God as God at the same time. Read the first and second commandments.”
No I said you were right about false idols. I’m talking about the Jewish faith and other major faiths of the world.
“God doesn’t want his children to love him out of fear either. I know I don’t.
You say you would want your children to love you in their own way—What if their way was to slap you in the face,, ignore everything you said to them, and spent all their time idolizing your neighbor and doing everything he said? Would that be OK with you?”
Nope and that is not love. Anyone claiming to do that to God is not loving god. If they came to love me on their own though I would accept that.
“As for divorce, I’m simply stating what God’s view of it is.
As for forcing women to die—come on Seon. You’re sounding silly now.”
Well that’s what will happen if we outlaw abortion. I don’t like it, you don’t like it but women will find a way to abort their fetuses even in unsafe conditions. And I still support allowing women to get abortions due to health reasons.
“If people are drawn away from the church there are two main reasons: 1) The unadulterated Word of God is not being preached and so people find none of life’s answers in church, and 2)Where the Word of God is being preached fully, sinful people don’t want to have their sins exposed nor to be told their lifestyle is unpleasing to God. So they leave the church and create a god in their own image—oftentimes that’s evolutionism.”
If the unadulterated word of god was preached more people would be drawn away from church. Especially women. If we take a fundamental view of the Bible then women are basically second class citizens who are just sold from their fathers to their husbands. Oh yeah and gays, witches, psychics, thieves, women who are not virgins on their wedding night are put to death.
See if you take it in a less literal approach and focus on the love and forgiveness, more people like me will be attracted to that message. To me Christianity is just about loving god and humanity and believing Jesus was the son of god who rose from the dead. All the rest is just dogma.
“I was wondering when you’d quote the most frequently quoted verse in the Bible by non-believers! Too bad everyone who quotes it takes it out of CONTEXT—there’s that word again. The quote is part of the Sermon on the Mount and begins in Matthew 7:1. If you will read the entire quote, you’ll see that Jesus is talking about judging people HYPOCRITICALLY. Jesus is teaching that you should never judge someone else BEFORE you take a close look at yourself to make sure you have no un-confessed sin in your own life. Once you know you’re right with God (removing the plank from your own eye), you will be qualified to “remove the speck from the other fellow’s eye.” The Bible teaches elsewhere that we ARE to judge those who are living in sin. (Galatians 6:1 for example.)”
Yeah that’s the most quoted answer! How do you know you are right with God? Didn’t he also say God will judge us by the same standards we use to judge everyone else? And how do we know the divorced women isn’t more godly then us?
“Other than those things which would have been specific to the Jews (such as addressing Pharisees and Sadducees), Jesus taught concepts and truths that pertain to all people in all times.”
Yep and I agree with 90% of them. It’s hard not to.
“There are many men I love Seon, but I don’t want to have sex with them. While I’m sure there are homosexual couples that are very loving toward each other, homosexuality is the exception to the rule and therefore not an argument for same-sex marriage.”
Well I don’t want to get in a debate of that because it will last for weeks! I don’t love men that way but I’m sure some gay people do and it’s genuine. So good for them, less competition for me to find a woman.
“No Seon, the moral standards set down by God have NEVER changed. Yes the Bible records events of slavery, just as it records events of adultery and murder. But the Bible is not justifying those things. Yes, people have taken many scriptures and twisted them to justify their own sinful desires; but that doesn’t make them right about what the scriptures actually teach. When people live by the concepts and morals specifically stated in the Bible, the entire society prospers. To some degree that’s why the U.S. prospered for nearly 200 years. Now that the Bible has become almost taboo, the entire nation is in a moral free-fall.”
Probably a good thing considering about 40% of the Bible is worth following. But exactly, that’s what happens when people take a fundamental view of the Bible. It’s the entire Bible is 100% true so that must mean slavery is justified.
“Sure you do. Almost everything you’ve written over all these posts shows you have faith (dare I say “blind” faith) in evolution and humanistic standards of morality. You’re living your life according to those standards which have no basis or foundation; standards which keep changing with the societal landscape.”
I don’t have blind faith in anything, I examined the evidence. I have knowledge. You have faith in a book that was written over 2000 years ago by people with no knowledge. They still thought the Earth was flat.
““And those morals (God’s) are not absolute. They change as they suit the time.”
No they don’t. God’s absolute moral standards NEVER change. People’s responses and actions pertaining to those moral standards do change based on their own immorality.”
Then if we take it as 100% literal word of god we must accept slavery is justified, we must kill women who are not virgins on their wedding nights and the misogamy in the Old Testament. But even you don’t agree with everything in the Old Testament.
“How do we know Paul actually existed in the first place? All we have is a bunch of long winded letters.”
Yes at least 13 of them. They were written to numerous churches and individuals and there is not a single account of any of those churches or individuals reporting that Paul never existed. Most of the churches and individuals who received the letters knew Paul personally—some of the churches had been founded by Paul on his missionary journeys. The letters were almost immediately copied in order to be sent to other churches as well. Why would anyone want to copy a letter that was written by a fictitious person?
“The point of the species is to multiply and continue to evolve, right?”
No, the point of man is to bring glory to God. But supposing the point was to multiply the species—aren’t abortionists defeating that main tenant of evolution?
“Then our species would die out.”
That’s only an assumption. Think about it—at the beginning of the evolutionary process (according to what macro-evolutionists teach) all life started with a one-celled creature. It developed into sea creatures over millions of years and then into land creatures over millions more years, and slowly developed into human beings. So when the first pre-humans came into existence, unless there was one male and one female that evolved at exactly the same time, procreation of the species would have been impossible! The only “logical” answer is that prior to male and female there was only one sex that was able to reproduce within its own sex. So maybe that’s where we’re headed in the future—back to one sex. May everyone will become homosexual and men will have babies! (I hope this helps to show the absolute foolishness of evolutionary ideas.)
“But if you had evidence for an alternative theory you could put the theory forth. That’s the beauty of science.”
Why sure, you can put forth any theory you want. Scientists theorize there could be life on other planets. Some people theorize human life on earth was planted here from outer space. But scientific theories, while they are a starting point to then try to scientifically prove or disprove the theory, are really just science fiction until proven otherwise. At the end of the day, theories are not science. Science is the observation and understanding of things.
“I have, but if you only believe in one book and ignore the evidence in others you live a sad sheltered existence.”
Since the Bible so greatly is in opposition to evolutionary theory, either one or the other is true. The law of contradiction says that when two things contradict each other they can’t both be true. (They could both be wrong, of course.) So when what we observe well matches the Bible’s account of things and evolutionary theory does not, I’ll go with the Bible.
“A good moral law, it would be hard to argue why we shouldn’t use that moral code for a society.”
Great Brittan used to and they were the most powerful nation in the world. They then took God out of their society and look at them now. The U.S. has followed the same path.
“I am very familiar with how evolution supposedly works and what evolutionists believe. But please tell me, how does evolution work?”
“Well first we don’t believe in anything, we look at the evidence. I’m not a scientist but my understanding is humans and prime apes share the same common ancestor and all life on this planet can be traced back to a single celled organism. And as I said it is a slow process. It’s not like poof a species gives birth to a new species.”
The idea that apes and humans share a common ancestor is only a theory, not a scientific fact. The idea that all life came from a single celled organism is a theory, not a scientific fact. And the reason the millions of years idea came into existence in the first place was that it was the only way to explain the theory that all life evolved. Obviously it couldn’t have evolved over a short period, so millions of years was evoked to make the theory work. People who subscribe to the unscientific theory of evolution absolutely refuse to consider any alternative and therefore will not/cannot objectively consider the evidence for a young earth; and there is a multitude of evidence for a young earth. Every single day there is more evidence that DIS-proves the millions of years evolutionary theory, and man do the evolutionists go scrambling for alternative theories to fit the new evidence. Probably the greatest book to date that shows why evolution can’t be true is the new one titled, “Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels”. It’s edited by Robert Carter, Ph.D. Nine PhD scientists explain evolution’s fatal flaws in areas claimed to be its greatest strengths.
“Because there’s none? I tried some articles on the site, one talked about dna? Anyway, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.”
Let me give you an example—Astronomers have spent billions of dollars over the last several decades searching for coded signals from outer space because they believe any coded signal will prove intelligent life exists “out there.” Over the last couple of decades, the science of DNA has opened up an incredible area of research which shows that DNA is a coded set of instructions for building life. It is vastly more intricate than anything that man has every discovered and everyday more of its amazing complexity is revealed. So how come a code from outer space will prove intelligence, but the code of DNA doesn’t prove “someone” created it—that it couldn’t possibly have evolved?
Did you know that proteins are built from the information given by DNA, and DNA can’t exist without proteins? Therefore, one can’t have come into existence without the other. So what are the chances that these two codependent things simply evolved? Doesn’t it make much more sense that someone designed it that way and brought it into existence?
“Exactly and how do you decide if something is true or not?”
By comparing it with the absolute perfect standard of truth in the Bible.
“Yeah so Bible magic. That answers that. No scientists are needed as the majority are just wrong.”
Not Bible magic but God’s divine control.
The majority is often wrong is it not? So majority is never proof of something’s truth.
“Well for starters the Dinosaur’s lived through three geologic periods. Relative Dating, Radiometric Dating, Absolute dating methods like Fission track, Potassium-argon dating, Argon-argon dating, the fact that no human bones have been found with Dinosaur bones. We can observe objects 18,000,000,000 light years away (so objects that existed 18 billion years ago), not only that but they are no mention of Dinosaurs in Egyptian, Roman, Greek, Sumar history anywhere. Of course you would argue God used bible magic to make it appear like that to test our faith.”
Please get a copy of “Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels” and read the chapter on dating methods. They have been found to be wildly inaccurate. Here’s a Google for youself—Google “Prehistoric cave art depicting humans hunting dinosaurs.”
“Of course, all the evidence points to the Dinosaur bones just being a few thousand years old. You know better then those scientists.”
I don’t but learned PhD’d scientists do. Check out the book I recommended.
“Yep the beloved disciple but the passage still clearly states “Anyone who comes before me and doesn’t hate his mother, father and own life can’t be my disciple” that’s just your interpretation of it.”
And what is wrong with that interpretation? Is it illogical based on all Jesus’ teachings about love? Is there some reason it can’t be interpreted that way other than that you don’t?
“Only one? Lack of evidence from contemporary sources?”
A lack of evidence is no evidence. That’s another silly one Seon.
” Ok maybe with false idols but they still love the creator of the universe as sincerely as you do.”
You’re fiddling with the law of contradiction. You can’t worship false idols as god and worship God as God at the same time. Read the first and second commandments.
“When I have kids I would want them to love me. But I wouldn’t want them to love me out of fear (that’s not love) and I would want them to love me in their own way.”
God doesn’t want his children to love him out of fear either. I know I don’t.
You say you would want your children to love you in their own way—What if their way was to slap you in the face,, ignore everything you said to them, and spent all their time idolizing your neighbor and doing everything he said? Would that be OK with you?