The Bible and Christianity

[chronic]

if you believe in evolution you are a fool

I can disprove evolution in one statement

How can you go from reproducing asexually, which is what all one-celled organisms do, which is what evolutionists think we came from, to producing sexually.

Again with people having no handle on the words 'prove' and 'disprove'! Where the hell did you guys get your definitions of proof from?

Anyway, your statement hits upon a topic of great interest to biologists and scientists, the transition from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction. Theres a pretty decent grasp on the why (the benefits offered by sexual reproduction over asexual reproduction basically involve randomness in the gene pool and a greater ability to evolve via natural selection), a slight understanding on the how (there are many intermediate species either capable of both asexual and sexual reproduction, or only capable of asexual reproduction but who undergo some form of sexual-like ability, and very unsure of the when (as you might imagine).

However, this issue is a scientific issue, not a theological one. You can throw out hundreds of single line questions which science has yet to answer...

Remember, we are not all knowing beings. Uh... theres only one of those, right??

- The Bomber

Basically, you can't answer. Unsolved questions don't always mean that science has to advance to solve them but that science simply cannot solve them, not now not never. Why? Well because solving these questions would mean admitting there is a powerful all knowing being but ..you don't like those right. If you question everything, which you do (politics, government...etc), why don't you question science? If you accept evolution as an unmovable theory then you have to accept that the animals of today that reproduce sexually today were, in the past, reproducing asexually when all of sudden they accidentally produced an egg and at the same time another animal of the same specie as the first one made a sperm cell and then but not least they, at the same time and unintentionally, both obtained the equipment to get the egg and sperm together so they could breed their progeny with a full set of genes; now that shit brings us to the great subject of the irreducible complexity the argument that pisses every evolutionist off.

Randomness and luck is not something that is liked among scientists and rational people, I don't believe that randomness could have created a world so perfect. Just look at the universe; everything is so perfectly made and everything so perfectly matches together that there simply must be an omniscient being that works outside of the dimensions we know. The universe has a number of properties that are just right for live to evolve; the strength of the gravitational force, the strength of the nuclear force, the power of the sun, the amount of dark matter and dark energy. These properties and several other key properties could have been vastly different then they are but instead they are amazingly just right to produce life. All the matters in the universe is governed by precisely balanced laws and constants; I do not have the audacity to believe that all of this was created by itself and not by 'God'. Just take gravity as an example; if we didn't have such thing that pulled matter together, you would never get planets, you wouldn't get stars nor any complex organism. If you didn't have the strong nuclear force, they would be nothing to hold protons and neutrons together in the nucleus so you wouldn't have any atoms so no chemistry, if we didn't have any electric magnetic force there wouldn't be any bounding between chemicals and list goes on. These laws and forces could have been set through a wide range of possibilities and if you change any of these laws by an inch life wouldn't be possible. If you didn't have all these fundamentals principles then life wouldn't exist; wipe out one of these principles or one of those laws would equal; no life possible. I don't know if you know how many laws there is or how precise they are. The numbers that govern the universe unexpectedly conspire in an extraordinary way to make the universe habitable for life so basically; the universe if finely tuned on a razor's edge in a way that defies mere chance and that shit points directly to a powerful creator. Normally after an explosion everything is fucked up but after the big bang everything is finely tuned and even after that people still believe it's by luck; that's bullshit and it was calculated, by a Cambridge astronomer named Fred Doyle, that the possibility of life arising spontaneously is equal to 1x10 to the 40th which Doyle likens to ''a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein''.

[GoodGirlsGetGutted]

Thank you Chronic; you've helped strengthen my faith even more.

I say,
Science is as manmade as religion is manmade.

[AbramIsaac]

Please...drop the issue of God's existence. That's another thread entirely. I'm saying this from a neutral position, and it's just the simple truth of the matter:

The issue is religion, in this thread. Specifically Christianity. That is a debate that doesn't need to even be based on truth, but rather can be treated as a philisophical and/or historical debate. Please just drop the "God's existence" rheotoric (on both sides) because that's not an issue that needs to be brought into this thread.

I'm asking you all for the sake of the thread, because all of you know that neither side is going to change the other's mind. The only reason you people respond to each other is out of frustration at what each side perceives as logical flaws/ignorance on behalf of the other.

Back on topic. What level of importance do you place the scriptures of the Bible in the practice of Christianity? Beyond that, how does one ignore scripture that is oppressive, or seems conducive to bigotry?

[GoodGirlsGetGutted]

Please...drop the issue of God's existence. That's another thread entirely.

You're right.
But that thread got locked, didn't it?

The Old Testament is figurative, while the primary focus in the New Testament is the Gospel of The Lord, which is historic.

[AbramIsaac]

Please...drop the issue of God's existence. That's another thread entirely.

You're right.
But that thread got locked, didn't it?

The Old Testament is figurative, while the primary focus in the New Testament is the Gospel of The Lord, which is historic.

Yes, that thread did get locked. That's why I've continuously brought up the fact that the issue should be dropped before that negativity leads to the same thing to happen here.

Your synopsis is dead-on though.

[mrjizzbomber]

@ Chronic...

1) Science undergoes the ultimate scrutiny and questioning. Science is held to the burden of proof. Theology cops out by using the concept of "faith" / blind belief. Many scientific principals, despite being scrutinized for hundreds of years and still having not been disproved, are still called theories. Don't tell me I don't question science; questioning and scrutiny lay the foundation for science. It is theology which runs and hides from questioning.

2) Your analysis that 'all of a sudden they accidentally produced an egg at the same time another animal of the same species first made a sperm cell' is absurd. First of all, you are trying to time-compress processes of evolution which spanned HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS of time - a scope which is likely beyond human comprehension. Secondly, reproduction did not jump from cell-splitting to sperm-egg interactions, there were literally thousands of intermediate reproductive processes along that evolutionary path. Finally, any scientist who claimed there is an irreducible complexity in this world is a fool. Sure, with our current capacity and knowledge we can not find a discrete, finite and final order in... well... almost anything in this world; but, to claim irreducibility in that order is ignorance and laziness. Science will be lead by pioneers and achievers, not those who are looking for the easy way out.

3) "Randomness and luck is not something that is liked among scientists and rational people". Are you kidding me? Are you a scientist?? Do you understand that the foundation of much science is the understanding of probability, randomness and statistics? Holy shit man, randomness is the crux of the entire theory of evolution! Our best-known explanations of the world rely on randomness!

4) "The universe has a number of properties that are just right for life to evolve". Do you understand what the world 'evolve' means? The evolution of life means life adapted to fit the needs of the universe, NOT that the universe is in existence to fit the needs of life. Had the universe been different, even DRASTICALLY different, even different beyond what you can imagine, life would have evolved differently to fit those different circumstances. The conditions of our universe are the only conditions life as we know it can survive in; however, if those conditions were different, life as we know it would be different. It would have evolved to meet the differing needs.

5) Fred Doyle is a jackass

- The Bomber

[mrjizzbomber]

Please...drop the issue of God's existence. That's another thread entirely. I'm saying this from a neutral position, and it's just the simple truth of the matter:

The issue is religion, in this thread. Specifically Christianity. That is a debate that doesn't need to even be based on truth, but rather can be treated as a philisophical and/or historical debate. Please just drop the "God's existence" rheotoric (on both sides) because that's not an issue that needs to be brought into this thread.

I'm asking you all for the sake of the thread, because all of you know that neither side is going to change the other's mind. The only reason you people respond to each other is out of frustration at what each side perceives as logical flaws/ignorance on behalf of the other.

Back on topic. What level of importance do you place the scriptures of the Bible in the practice of Christianity? Beyond that, how does one ignore scripture that is oppressive, or seems conducive to bigotry?

Once again, I'm not interested in talking about God's existence; but at the same time I'm not going to stop defending science and evolution. Take away science and leave us with religion and we would be heathens.

Back on topic, people see in these documents what they want to see. If a Pope needs to see justification for torturing non-believers, he finds it. Just like someone else mentioned, Islamic fundamentalists see what they want to see in the Qur'an. And people see what they want to see in the Constitution.

I think we are an intelligent and advanced enough culture that we don't need any of these documents to guide what is right and wrong in our personal lives. Ignoring scripture that is oppressive should be very easy for a rational person. Just like following scripture that is appropriate should be very easy. Do you really need a stone tablet to tell you not to kill?

- The Bomber

[GoodGirlsGetGutted]

Mr. Jizz Bomber, or should I say Dr. Jizz Bomber, how does almighty science explain the Miracle of Lanciano or the Shroud of Turin?

[mrjizzbomber]

Mr. Jizz Bomber, or should I say Dr. Jizz Bomber, how does almighty science explain the Miracle of Lanciano or the Shroud of Turin?

Not Dr... I went the business route. More $$.

The Shroud of Turin? Even if authentic, isn't that just the cloth which covered Jesus Christ after his crucifixion? The life and death of Jesus Christ is well documented history - am I missing part of the story? What needs to be explained?

As for the first part of the question, you know better than to have me try to explain stories and fairy tales. If you want me to give an explanation about how something happened, you need to first meet the burden of proof that the events actually did happen. A theological story doesn't cut it.

- The Bomber

[GoodGirlsGetGutted]

The thing about the Shroud of Turin is that its negative photographic image bears the face of Jesus. You can only see it in the negative, not just by looking at the Shroud.

There have been several cases of eucharistic miracles. In these, the host becomes real flesh.
Scientists studied it and found that it was striated cardiac muscle. The blood of the flesh was uncoagulated. The most striking fact is this: when the flesh was weighed whole, the weight was noted. The flesh was cut into 5 pieces and each piece was weighed individually. Each piece alone weighed the exact same as the whole piece did, indicating that the body of Christ cannot be separated.

[mrjizzbomber]

The thing about the Shroud of Turin is that its negative photographic image bears the face of Jesus. You can only see it in the negative, not just by looking at the Shroud.

There have been several cases of eucharistic miracles. In these, the host becomes real flesh.
Scientists studied it and found that it was striated cardiac muscle. The blood of the flesh was uncoagulated. The most striking fact is this: when the flesh was weighed whole, the weight was noted. The flesh was cut into 5 pieces and each piece was weighed individually. Each piece alone weighed the exact same as the whole piece did, indicating that the body of Christ cannot be separated.

Source?

- The Bomber

[DrunkenDeath]

I wish I had something to say

[DrunkenDeath]

I wish I had something to say

Just enjoy the show

This is the first post I fully read in this topic...

[DrunkenDeath]

in debates like this, both sides say the other is wrong and there's no evidence and it's fantasy.


it's boring.

[GoodGirlsGetGutted]

The thing about the Shroud of Turin is that its negative photographic image bears the face of Jesus. You can only see it in the negative, not just by looking at the Shroud.

There have been several cases of eucharistic miracles. In these, the host becomes real flesh.
Scientists studied it and found that it was striated cardiac muscle. The blood of the flesh was uncoagulated. The most striking fact is this: when the flesh was weighed whole, the weight was noted. The flesh was cut into 5 pieces and each piece was weighed individually. Each piece alone weighed the exact same as the whole piece did, indicating that the body of Christ cannot be separated.

Source?

- The Bomber

http://www.zenit.org/article-12933?l=english
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin