Abandoning Christianity 20 reasons they suggest...

Anything to do with Christianity can be discussed here.

Abandoning Christianity 20 reasons they suggest...

admin
Site Admin
Joined: 19 Feb 2011, 18:27

24 Jul 2012, 07:27 #1

Christianity is based on fear
   Christianity preys on the innocent
   Christianity is based on dishonesty
   Christianity is extremely egocentric
   Christianity breeds arrogance, a chosen-people mentality
   Christianity breeds authoritarianism
   Christianity is cruel
   Christianity is anti-intellectual, anti-scientific
   Christianity has a morbid, unhealthy preoccupation with sex
   Christianity produces sexual misery
   Christianity has an exceedingly narrow, legalistic view of morality
   Christianity encourages acceptance of real evils while focusing on imaginary evils
   Christianity depreciates the natural world
   Christianity models hierarchical, authoritarian organization
   Christianity sanctions slavery
   Christianity is misogynistic
   Christianity is homophobic
   The Bible is not a reliable guide to Christ's teachings
   The Bible is riddled with contradictions
   Christianity borrowed its central myths and ceremonies from other ancient religions

It can be found here...http://www.seesharppress.com/20reasons.html

The problem I personally have with the above is the fact they never really get what real Christianity is. Well what I have come to know 'real' Christianity as.

Take any of the above points and tell me why you think they are anything to do with Christ's Christianity?

LOVE the LORD thy God with all thine heart, mind, body, soul and strength.LOVE your neighbour as you LOVE yourself.. in this way you love me.
Reply

horsethorn
Moderator
Joined: 22 Aug 2012, 12:07

22 Aug 2012, 12:29 #2

I think that some of these could be caused by a range of organisations, not just religious, and I don't think that any of them are unique to christianity.

Some sections of christianity, however, can be shown to display these attributes. Creationism, for example, is riddled with dishonesty.

ht
...then you will understand the truth - that there is no signature
Reply

cymnot
miracle in the making
Joined: 24 Feb 2011, 22:37

24 Aug 2012, 18:13 #3

Agree with you Horsethorn and also with Admin that few really understand what Christianity is about.
We could do away with virtually everything in that list and be Christian.
Reply

admin
Site Admin
Joined: 19 Feb 2011, 18:27

26 Aug 2012, 08:48 #4

horsethorn:4817 wrote:I think that some of these could be caused by a range of organisations, not just religious, and I don't think that any of them are unique to christianity.

Some sections of christianity, however, can be shown to display these attributes. Creationism, for example, is riddled with dishonesty.

ht
How?  God created the world. 'If' and I do mean, 'if' there was evidence to the contrary then there would be no Jewish or Christian faith.

Creationism = definition =
creationism/krēˈāSHəˌnizəm/
Noun:
The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by processes...
The fact remains there is no evidence to tell us where LIFE itself came from. The fact it exists and the matter it is made up from, does not give us the answers. There is also the fact that man has no evidence from the time life was first created and science is based only on that which exists today.

LOVE the LORD thy God with all thine heart, mind, body, soul and strength.LOVE your neighbour as you LOVE yourself.. in this way you love me.
Reply

admin
Site Admin
Joined: 19 Feb 2011, 18:27

26 Aug 2012, 08:54 #5

cymnot:4829 wrote:Agree with you Horsethorn and also with Admin that few really understand what Christianity is about.
We could do away with virtually everything in that list and be Christian.
I believe that God makes the difference. Because the believer is not any of the above things. Why I believe that is because Christ and God, are something you have to choose for yourself.

s

LOVE the LORD thy God with all thine heart, mind, body, soul and strength.LOVE your neighbour as you LOVE yourself.. in this way you love me.
Reply

horsethorn
Moderator
Joined: 22 Aug 2012, 12:07

28 Aug 2012, 10:16 #6

admin:4841 wrote:
horsethorn:4817 wrote:I think that some of these could be caused by a range of organisations, not just religious, and I don't think that any of them are unique to christianity.

Some sections of christianity, however, can be shown to display these attributes. Creationism, for example, is riddled with dishonesty.

ht
How? God created the world. 'If' and I do mean, 'if' there was evidence to the contrary then there would be no Jewish or Christian faith.
Creationist propoganda can be shown to be making dishonest claims about scientific methods and theories. It makes no difference about your 'if' - that they can be shown to be dishonest means that they cannot be trusted. My understanding of christianity was that christians were not supposed to bear false witness.
admin:4841 wrote: Creationism = definition =
creationism/krēˈāSHəˌnizəm/
Noun:
The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by processes...
"Belief" is the important word in that definition.
admin:4841 wrote: The fact remains there is no evidence to tell us where LIFE itself came from.
Actually, that's not strictly true. There are data which point toward abiogenesis, but it is still being studied. Plenty of hypotheses have been suggested, but until more study has been done, we will not know. That's how science works.
admin:4841 wrote: The fact it exists and the matter it is made up from, does not give us the answers.
Actually, it can. Studying life and its components can provide lots of information about how it came about.
admin:4841 wrote: There is also the fact that man has no evidence from the time life was first created and science is based only on that which exists today.
Stuff that exists now existed in the past. Some stuff has existed for longer, and there are many methods of discovering how long stuff has existed.

I don't know what the current hypothesised date for abiogenesis is, but I am sure that a look through the Wiki entry would give plenty of references and links which would contain that information.

If you start down the road of "we can't know about the past", then that renders any historic information meaningless, including the bible.

ht
...then you will understand the truth - that there is no signature
Reply

admin
Site Admin
Joined: 19 Feb 2011, 18:27

06 Sep 2012, 10:02 #7

horsethorn:4843 wrote:
admin:4841 wrote:
horsethorn:4817 wrote:I think that some of these could be caused by a range of organisations, not just religious, and I don't think that any of them are unique to christianity.

Some sections of christianity, however, can be shown to display these attributes. Creationism, for example, is riddled with dishonesty.

ht
How? God created the world. 'If' and I do mean, 'if' there was evidence to the contrary then there would be no Jewish or Christian faith.
Creationist propoganda can be shown to be making dishonest claims about scientific methods and theories. It makes no difference about your 'if' - that they can be shown to be dishonest means that they cannot be trusted. My understanding of christianity was that christians were not supposed to bear false witness.
I think you have been sold a line. So explain what it means to be born of the Spirit and truth? Dishonesty? Are you not being dishonest claiming that you can make such allegations when you yourself know the bible shows that you cannot understand or comprehend those things which are spirit?

You cannot show any dishonest claims about scientific theory or method by believers. You cannot accept that theory and method are not proven.
That whilst manmade scientific methods are available and used by scientist they are NOT shown to be conclusive. If it were possible to prove conclusively beyond doubt what they believe in theory.....then it would not be theory.

Created cannot explain itself. No matter what methods you use.
You cannot give answers to how the first life started.
And what you cannot explain is that if the 'matter' on earth was really formed from the earth. That is had properties to give life to so many species why it only did it once?

You are really not making a good argument when it comes to what we as humans can see for ourselves. Where is the new life evolving from nothing. Lot's of millions of new species and different types of humans.
Please don't tell us we are being dishonesty. The scientist and science cannot even answer fundamental questions about what is lacking for their science to be correct.
admin:4841 wrote: Creationism = definition =
creationism/krēˈāSHəˌnizəm/
Noun:
The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by processes...
"Belief" is the important word in that definition.
But it has less to prove than showing why the earth is not still creating new species of life. The facts show that the earth does not and has not created any new life forms in such spectacular amounts since the beginning. Why not, if as you say we were a scientific development from the earth itself. Seems creation is an only child.How did it multiply.

admin:4841 wrote: The fact remains there is no evidence to tell us where LIFE itself came from.
Actually, that's not strictly true. There are data which point toward abiogenesis, but it is still being studied. Plenty of hypotheses have been suggested, but until more study has been done, we will not know. That's how science works.

I liked that one....  data which point toward abiogenesis,

,
   Making the building blocks of life is easyamino acids have been found in meteorites and even in outer space.  But just as bricks alone dont make a house, so it takes more than a random collection of amino acids to make life.  Like house bricks, the building blocks of life have to be assembled in a very specific and exceedingly elaborate way before they have the desired function (Davies, 1999, p. 28).


Abiogenesis is only one area of research which illustrates that the naturalistic origin of life hypothesis has become less and less probable as molecular biology has progressed, and is now at the point that its plausibility appears outside the realm of probability.  Numerous origin-of-life researchers, have lamented the fact that molecular biology during the past half-a-century has not been very kind to any naturalistic origin-of-life theory.  Perhaps this explains why researchers now are speculating that other events such as panspermia or an undiscovered life law are more probable than all existing terrestrial abiogenesis theories, and can better deal with the many seemingly insurmountable problems of abiogenesis.

Acknowledgements:  I want to thank Bert Thompson, Ph.D., Wayne Frair, Ph.D., and John Woodmorappe, M.A., for their comments on an earlier draft of this article.
It seems scientist now think it is impossible or rather outside the realm of probability.
admin:4841 wrote: The fact it exists and the matter it is made up from, does not give us the answers.
Actually, it can. Studying life and its components can provide lots of information about how it came about.
You require the original material from the beginning not the matter that we are today. We know how we come about today. How the first humans came about would require a study of the original humans.
Because no human today comes about the same way as the first humans did. A study of humans today will not give you the answers required for the first humans.
admin:4841 wrote: There is also the fact that man has no evidence from the time life was first created and science is based only on that which exists today.
Stuff that exists now existed in the past. Some stuff has existed for longer, and there are many methods of discovering how long stuff has existed.
Show me humans being formed from nothing.
The important stuff does not exist today. Nor can it.
I don't know what the current hypothesised date for abiogenesis is, but I am sure that a look through the Wiki entry would give plenty of references and links which would contain that information.

If you start down the road of "we can't know about the past", then that renders any historic information meaningless, including the bible.

ht
As you can see, I have already checked these things out.
I am surprised you haven't been updated yourself.

LOVE the LORD thy God with all thine heart, mind, body, soul and strength.LOVE your neighbour as you LOVE yourself.. in this way you love me.
Reply

horsethorn
Moderator
Joined: 22 Aug 2012, 12:07

06 Sep 2012, 20:38 #8

Split into two parts as the post's getting quite large :D
admin:4943 wrote:
horsethorn:4843 wrote:
admin:4841 wrote: How? God created the world. 'If' and I do mean, 'if' there was evidence to the contrary then there would be no Jewish or Christian faith.
Creationist propoganda can be shown to be making dishonest claims about scientific methods and theories. It makes no difference about your 'if' - that they can be shown to be dishonest means that they cannot be trusted. My understanding of christianity was that christians were not supposed to bear false witness.
I think you have been sold a line.
So I am wrong about christians? They are allowed to tell lies?
admin:4943 wrote: So explain what it means to be born of the Spirit and truth? Dishonesty? Are you not being dishonest claiming that you can make such allegations when you yourself know the bible shows that you cannot understand or comprehend those things which are spirit?
That's a claim that most religions make. Can you show any testable evidence that you have a better/superior understanding of 'spirit'?
admin:4943 wrote: You cannot show any dishonest claims about scientific theory or method by believers.
OK, here's a simple one. Literalists claim that they are christians, and also claim that there was a global flood around 5/6000 years ago.

There is no evidence that there was a global flood at that time. We have records from other civilisations at that time which show them carrying on quite happily even though they should have been under quite a lot of water. Geology also shows no evidence of a global flood at that time.

So, either we conclude that the global flood did not happen, and the literalists' deity (if it exists) hid the evidence (which makes that deity a deceiver); or we conclude that the global flood didn't happen and their interpretation is incorrect.

Which is it? And how do we tell?
admin:4943 wrote: You cannot accept that theory and method are not proven.
Scientific theories are NEVER 'proven'. The concept of 'proof' only applies to maths and logic (and alcohol).

Scientific theories are the best current explanation for the evidence. They are open to challenge from further evidence. This has happened quite a lot in the history of science, a notable example being the move from Newtonian mechanics to Einstein's Relativity.
admin:4943 wrote: That whilst manmade scientific methods are available and used by scientist they are NOT shown to be conclusive. If it were possible to prove conclusively beyond doubt what they believe in theory.....then it would not be theory.
No, if they were able to 'prove' they'd be mathematicians, logicians or distillers.

The use of the word 'theory' is a common misunderstanding between those who use it in a scientific context and those who use it in a common, everyday context. In everyday language, a theory is anything from a speculation upwards. Here's a definition from the World English Dictionary:

theory n  , pl -ries
1. a system of rules, procedures, and assumptions used to produce a result
2. abstract knowledge or reasoning
3. a speculative or conjectural view or idea: I have a theory about that
4. an ideal or hypothetical situation (esp in the phrase in theory )
5. a set of hypotheses related by logical or mathematical arguments to explain and predict a wide variety of connected phenomena in general terms: the theory of relativity
6. a nontechnical name for hypothesis

3, 4 and 6 are the 'common' usage of theory. 1 and 5 are the scientific use.

Here's the definition from the Science Dictionary:

theory  
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena

(both courtesy of dictionary.com)

As you can see there is some disparity between the two uses. It is important to recognise that when we use the word in phrases like "the Theory of Evolution", it is the scientific definition of 'theory' that is being used.

So, as you can see, firstly the idea of 'proven' is alien to science, and secondly, a 'theory' in science means a hypothesis that has been repeatedly tested and found to be the best explanation of the evidence, usually by using the predictive power of the theory to find further evidence.

If you'd like some examples, let me know - although that might be better on a separate thread.
admin:4943 wrote: Created cannot explain itself. No matter what methods you use.
You cannot give answers to how the first life started.
And what you cannot explain is that if the 'matter' on earth was really formed from the earth. That is had properties to give life to so many species why it only did it once?
We don't yet know if abiogenesis did only happen once. The primary reason that it is no longer happening is because the conditions for it to do so don't exist on Earth any more.

I've already said that we don't currently know how to explain or replicate abiogenesis, but then it was not much more than 100 years ago that we weren't able to successfully construct heavier-than-air flying machines, and back then it was considered impossible. Ditto for electricity being harnessed and used 200 years ago. There are many examples of this. When powered transport was invented, it was thought that going faster than a dozen or so miles an hour would make it impossible to breathe!

Science is constantly investigating areas where we don't know stuff - as can be seen from the recent investigations into what was previously considered "junk" DNA.

ht

Part two follows...
...then you will understand the truth - that there is no signature
Reply

horsethorn
Moderator
Joined: 22 Aug 2012, 12:07

06 Sep 2012, 20:42 #9

Part two...
admin:4943 wrote: You are really not making a good argument when it comes to what we as humans can see for ourselves. Where is the new life evolving from nothing. Lot's of millions of new species and different types of humans.
Please don't tell us we are being dishonesty. The scientist and science cannot even answer fundamental questions about what is lacking for their science to be correct.
New life (assuming you mean abiogenesis) doesn't 'evolve'. Life must exist before evolution can occur.

What we do see is evolution occurring. A quick google will provide many papers describing evolution being observed.
admin:4943 wrote:
admin:4841 wrote: Creationism = definition =
"Belief" is the important word in that definition.
But it has less to prove than showing why the earth is not still creating new species of life. The facts show that the earth does not and has not created any new life forms in such spectacular amounts since the beginning. Why not, if as you say we were a scientific development from the earth itself. Seems creation is an only child.How did it multiply.
I've answered most of this above.

Life multiplied through a range of ways, from the division of simple life such as bacteria, through to sexual reproduction.
admin:4943 wrote:
admin:4841 wrote: The fact remains there is no evidence to tell us where LIFE itself came from.
Actually, that's not strictly true. There are data which point toward abiogenesis, but it is still being studied. Plenty of hypotheses have been suggested, but until more study has been done, we will not know. That's how science works.
I liked that one....  data which point toward abiogenesis,
I'm glad, because that's what we call 'evidence'. In the same way that, for example, fossils and geology provided data which pointed towards evolution.
admin:4943 wrote:
   Making the building blocks of life is easyamino acids have been found in meteorites and even in outer space.  But just as bricks alone dont make a house, so it takes more than a random collection of amino acids to make life.  Like house bricks, the building blocks of life have to be assembled in a very specific and exceedingly elaborate way before they have the desired function (Davies, 1999, p. 28).

Abiogenesis is only one area of research which illustrates that the naturalistic origin of life hypothesis has become less and less probable as molecular biology has progressed, and is now at the point that its plausibility appears outside the realm of probability.  Numerous origin-of-life researchers, have lamented the fact that molecular biology during the past half-a-century has not been very kind to any naturalistic origin-of-life theory.  Perhaps this explains why researchers now are speculating that other events such as panspermia or an undiscovered life law are more probable than all existing terrestrial abiogenesis theories, and can better deal with the many seemingly insurmountable problems of abiogenesis.

Acknowledgements:  I want to thank Bert Thompson, Ph.D., Wayne Frair, Ph.D., and John Woodmorappe, M.A., for their comments on an earlier draft of this article.
It seems scientist now think it is impossible or rather outside the realm of probability.
A few scientists, perhaps. There are always two ends to a bell curve.
admin:4943 wrote:
admin:4841 wrote: The fact it exists and the matter it is made up from, does not give us the answers.
Actually, it can. Studying life and its components can provide lots of information about how it came about.
You require the original material from the beginning not the matter that we are today. We know how we come about today. How the first humans came about would require a study of the original humans.
Because no human today comes about the same way as the first humans did. A study of humans today will not give you the answers required for the first humans.
The matter we are made of is the same that has always been around, less some of the atmosphere and plus material from space dust, meteorites and the like.

The first human would have come about in the same way as we do now - via sexual reproduction. The first human's parents would have been slightly outside our definition of 'human', but their DNA would have combined and mutated to make their child within the definition.
admin:4943 wrote:
admin:4841 wrote: There is also the fact that man has no evidence from the time life was first created and science is based only on that which exists today.
Stuff that exists now existed in the past. Some stuff has existed for longer, and there are many methods of discovering how long stuff has existed.
Show me humans being formed from nothing.
The important stuff does not exist today. Nor can it.
Every time a human is born it has grown from nothing - before conception, it was an egg and a sperm. They were constructed from molecules within the respective parent.

What 'important stuff' do you mean?
admin:4943 wrote:
I don't know what the current hypothesised date for abiogenesis is, but I am sure that a look through the Wiki entry would give plenty of references and links which would contain that information.

If you start down the road of "we can't know about the past", then that renders any historic information meaningless, including the bible.

ht
As you can see, I have already checked these things out.
I am surprised you haven't been updated yourself.
I can see that you have 'checked these things out', but unfortunately you appear to have done it on the wrong websites. When researching a subject, it's best to use sites which are unbiased, peer-reviewed and written by people who have experience and knowledge within that subject.

If you want me to point you to a few sites, I'm quite happy to do so.

ht
...then you will understand the truth - that there is no signature
Reply

admin
Site Admin
Joined: 19 Feb 2011, 18:27

09 Sep 2012, 07:53 #10

horsethorn:4956 wrote:Split into two parts as the post's getting quite large :D
admin:4943 wrote:
horsethorn:4843 wrote: Creationist propoganda can be shown to be making dishonest claims about scientific methods and theories. It makes no difference about your 'if' - that they can be shown to be dishonest means that they cannot be trusted. My understanding of christianity was that christians were not supposed to bear false witness.
I think you have been sold a line.
So I am wrong about christians? They are allowed to tell lies?
Till you can prove it... what do you think based on the information from the bible? So you have NOT established or even proved they lie.
Waiting....
admin:4943 wrote: So explain what it means to be born of the Spirit and truth? Dishonesty? Are you not being dishonest claiming that you can make such allegations when you yourself know the bible shows that you cannot understand or comprehend those things which are spirit?
That's a claim that most religions make. Can you show any testable evidence that you have a better/superior understanding of 'spirit'?
Isn't that being dishonest when the truth shows that MOST religions do not have an Holy Spirit. What has MOST religion got to do with Jew or Christian and the Holy Spirit? The superior knowledge or evidence is shown in that you nor any man can prove the bible God does not exist
or as he says. His words will remain forever and it is true.
God has kept his word, you have not proved him wrong yet?
admin:4943 wrote: You cannot show any dishonest claims about scientific theory or method by believers.
OK, here's a simple one. Literalists claim that they are christians, and also claim that there was a global flood around 5/6000 years ago.
Propaganda... No one knows when the flood happened or how many days or years it was between Adam being created and the fall taking place. Or how long a year was in the days of Adam as no calender or watches existed. The days not divided in to weeks and months etc.
Atheists/agnostics and Pagans assumed a lot over the years
but not one has stopped to answer the real questions or consider the real facts. As I said your reply DOES NOT show any dishonest claimes about scientific theory or method. You see they are manmade beliefs and are theory because even with METHOD they cannot be prove conclusive.
There is no evidence that there was a global flood at that time. We have records from other civilisations at that time which show them carrying on quite happily even though they should have been under quite a lot of water. Geology also shows no evidence of a global flood at that time.
What records giving dates and months from 6,000 years ago showing
no flood. How do dead people write records of a global flood?
Well the record in the bible says that only 8 were saved and that is recorded in the bible. Exactly who would have been left to write such records?
Geology is not a proven method there is no evidence to show science is anything but the emperors clothes. I said in my reply
You cannot show any dishonest claims about scientific theory or method by believers.
I said you cannot show not that you cannot claim. To show dishonest claims you have to produce evidence that believers are lying and that the METHOD AND THEORY are positive and conclusive evidence by showing us that they are. You cannot prove method or theory is proof in the case you have stated. My point being that what you believe and what you yourself can prove beyond any doubt to others about what you believe are two different things. My point stands you cannot show by anything you write any dishonest claims about scientific theory or method. Read up what a method and theory are in scientific terms.
So, either we conclude that the global flood did not happen, and the literalists' deity (if it exists) hid the evidence (which makes that deity a deceiver); or we conclude that the global flood didn't happen and their interpretation is incorrect.

Which is it? And how do we tell?
This has nothing to do with proving a creationist is dishonest about method or theory. It literally concludes you put your faith in things YOU CANNOT PROVE to yourself or anyone else. You can express and write and opinion but what you cannot do is prove God wrong about what he revealed in the OT and no matter what you do you cannot prove there was no global flood. Look how you used civilisations and records.

Historians estimate that writing (the visible recording of language peculiar to the human species) began around 6,000 B.C. It is believed that writing developed independently in areas of Egypt, Mesopotamia, China, and among the Mayans of South America. The most ancient form of writing was cuneiform, wedge-shaped marks made on clay tablets. It was developed around 4000 B.C. by the Sumerians, a non-Semitic (non-Hebrew) people of unknown origins. A limestone tablet with cuneiform writing was found in the valley between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers (a region of present-day Iraq where the Sumerians lived) and has helped historians trace back the origins of writing. Cuneiform pictographs closely resemble Egyptian hieroglyphics, which was an extensive writing system using pictures developed by Egyptian priests around 3110 B.C. Both cuneiform and hieroglyphics were predecessors to the modern alphabet.

Further Information: uneiform. [Online] Available www.cc.emory.edu/CARLOS/ODYSSEY/NEAREAST/cunef.html, October 23, 2000; Harris, Roy. The Origin of Writing. LaSalle, Ill.: Open Court, 1986; Ober, J. H. Writing: Man's Greatest Invention. Baltimore, Md.: Peabody Institute, 1965; "Prehistoric writing found in Egypt." UFO Roundup. [Online] Available http://ufoinfo.com/roundup/V03/rnd03_52.html, October 23, 2000.

Why would they be writing about flood? Did it happen before or after and could that be the reason the first writings did not occur properly till 4,000 bc? Anyone can google or look these things up.
How come you wrote the above
We have records from other civilisations at that time which show them carrying on quite happily even though they should have been under quite a lot of water.
What records? People were only beginning to write then.
Dead people writing records is wonderful only problem is that it was just developing then and they used symbols rather than words.
Now who is being dishonest?







admin:4943 wrote: You cannot accept that theory and method are not proven.
Scientific theories are NEVER 'proven'. The concept of 'proof' only applies to maths and logic (and alcohol).

Scientific theories are the best current explanation for the evidence. They are open to challenge from further evidence. This has happened quite a lot in the history of science, a notable example being the move from Newtonian mechanics to Einstein's Relativity.
If there was evidence then theory would not apply.
They simply examine the matter and then decide what they think is the answer. You see the evidence part is where everything crumbles.
There is no evidence for when life first started or how.
Modern day man cannot tell us how two humans different sexes suddenly happened. Two seperate life forces. Which can only continue to produce other life if they mate.
I am sorry if it seems harsh but you called creationists liars.
Why are they liars for believing God when you cannot prove God wrong about his hand in creating all things?
The first of our species had to be adults. Because a baby would not have survived the elements would they? Let us at least be realistic about the fact that in all these years the earth has not shown itself to produce any new humans or life forms such as animals from nothing, has it?
Species died out when unable to procreate. Why didn't the earth make more. Did science only exist at the beginning or does it only exist now and has nothing to do with the beginning?
How we think is important. We are either programmed to believe what we are told or we consider all that is before us and ask ourselves wher is the actual proof and evidence I require.
There is no proof or evidence is there to show Gods words wrong?
We both know that God is still winning that one.
Man cannot produce matter or life from any matter available to himself.
Matter reproduces matter and life reproduces life. But man and the earth itself can not produce either.

They are facts and that is what we have to deal with when it comes to
what science suggests and what it never tells you.

admin:4943 wrote: That whilst manmade scientific methods are available and used by scientist they are NOT shown to be conclusive. If it were possible to prove conclusively beyond doubt what they believe in theory.....then it would not be theory.
No, if they were able to 'prove' they'd be mathematicians, logicians or distillers.
So we don't have mathematicians, logicians or distillers?
No Mathematics, no Logic, and no Alcohol distillers?
But theory still remains theory????
The use of the word 'theory' is a common misunderstanding between those who use it in a scientific context and those who use it in a common, everyday context. In everyday language, a theory is anything from a speculation upwards. Here's a definition from the World English Dictionary:
Did this word and theory exist in 6,000 bc or even 4,000 bc?

theory n , pl -ries
1. a system of rules, procedures, and assumptions used to produce a result
2. abstract knowledge or reasoning
3. a speculative or conjectural view or idea: I have a theory about that
4. an ideal or hypothetical situation (esp in the phrase in theory )
5. a set of hypotheses related by logical or mathematical arguments to explain and predict a wide variety of connected phenomena in general terms: the theory of relativity
6. a nontechnical name for hypothesis

3, 4 and 6 are the 'common' usage of theory. 1 and 5 are the scientific use.
I noted that 1. used for scientific use stated:-
and assumptions used to produce a result
Not really any arguments to support anything as far as the definition of proof and the fact theory is not proven facts.
Here's the definition from the Science Dictionary:

theory
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena

(both courtesy of dictionary.com)
What experiments have they done to prove how the earth came into existence. The above applies the word 'theory' it does not show or apply to all theories especially those about life, creation and the flood.
None of the above apply to theories about how or when life first came into being or why. They do not apply to the flood. What experiments can give them those answers? We both know they do not exist.
As you can see there is some disparity between the two uses. It is important to recognise that when we use the word in phrases like "the Theory of Evolution", it is the scientific definition of 'theory' that is being used.
Which is all basically more or less all assumption in the scientific definition.

Proven because there is nothing from the beginning to do experiments with. I have read the books and the scientist also do not argue as you do.
They too, know that material from that time would be required.
Why does none exist? It is in the bible.
So, as you can see, firstly the idea of 'proven' is alien to science, and secondly, a 'theory' in science means a hypothesis that has been repeatedly tested and found to be the best explanation of the evidence, usually by using the predictive power of the theory to find further evidence.
No! Evidence is Alien to Science it does not exist when it comes to 'assumptions' the theory is the magic word the slight of hand and the veil which stops people questioning further what they are told.
Predictive power about evolution... when is the next new life form from nothing going to evolve? How did life evolve and when? You see Science doesn't even have the simple answers to the real questions.
As the scientist would say. " We do not know we can on assume we cannot predict or even tell you why no new life comes from nothing on the earth.

Life is a circle where life comes from life. Take it away it will cease to exist. Why if it was not created?
If you'd like some examples, let me know - although that might be better on a separate thread.
Give me examples of how life actually came into being and show me examples why new humans or species not popping up from nowhere.
admin:4943 wrote: Created cannot explain itself. No matter what methods you use.
You cannot give answers to how the first life started.
And what you cannot explain is that if the 'matter' on earth was really formed from the earth. That is had properties to give life to so many species why it only did it once?
We don't yet know if abiogenesis did only happen once. The primary reason that it is no longer happening is because the conditions for it to do so don't exist on Earth any more.
The scientist do not believe it could have happened. Hence a theory remains not even a theory did you read what they said about it being impossible?

I've already said that we don't currently know how to explain or replicate abiogenesis, but then it was not much more than 100 years ago that we weren't able to successfully construct heavier-than-air flying machines, and back then it was considered impossible. Ditto for electricity being harnessed and used 200 years ago. There are many examples of this. When powered transport was invented, it was thought that going faster than a dozen or so miles an hour would make it impossible to breathe!

Science is constantly investigating areas where we don't know stuff - as can be seen from the recent investigations into what was previously considered "junk" DNA.

ht

Part two follows...
Abiogensis would have duplicated itself by now, both here and through the universe if it actually ever existed. But what is sure is that the earth as it stands now could never have been a place fit for it to happen.
It never happened and it cannot happen. It is an assumed theory which scientist have basically abandoned.

I am sorry if I appear very strong on this but you have to understand you have been sold a line.

Part two to be completed.

LOVE the LORD thy God with all thine heart, mind, body, soul and strength.LOVE your neighbour as you LOVE yourself.. in this way you love me.
Reply