1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

How can you ask god for a cure and not blame him for the cause ?

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Hodders, 12 Aug 2015.

  1. win8.1

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 30 Apr 2014

    Posts: 681

    That can already be observed in God's creation like the Arctic hare that changes colour in winter. That is not Macro Evolution, that is a animal adapting to it's surroundings but a rodent never becoming anything more than a rodent and a hare remaining a hare.

    Macro evolution which would teach the myth that man used to be an animal or pond life cannot be observed and it's hard to believe in this day and age of so called smartness that science fiction is even considered as fact. It's like people are losing all common sense due to following what certain scientists would teach as fact being brainwashed by schools and media to believe this lie.
     
  2. Screeeech

    Mobster

    Joined: 29 Dec 2014

    Posts: 4,350

    Location: 16509

    [​IMG]
     
  3. Usher

    Mobster

    Joined: 30 Dec 2004

    Posts: 3,362

    Exactly as predicted you choose to ignore the evidence I gave you re your own body having visible evidence of evolution,

    In English the word "bigot" refers to a person whose habitual state of mind includes an ignorant, obstinate, irrational, or unfair intolerance of ideas, opinions, or beliefs that differ from their own with total disregard for proveable evidence that shows they are in error. You win OcUk Bigot of the year award
     
  4. Lytton

    Hitman

    Joined: 25 Oct 2014

    Posts: 567

    'Common sense'.

    Can you teach us how to use this common sense of yours kedge. It doesn't seem too common and it certainly makes no sense. Out of interest, given that macro evolution takes time, like canyon erosion does, how would you expect to see it with the naked eye? Would anything convince you that it could be possible, like if a starfish gave birth to a giraffe, or something?
     
  5. tyler_jrb

    Mobster

    Joined: 24 Aug 2013

    Posts: 4,550

    Location: Lincolnshire

    Lol how and why did the Arctic hare develop the gene to let it change coat color?

    We need Common sense. Wouldn't consider all your statements common sense.

    There is evolution all around you, you just refuse to a accept it. And then produce garbage.
     
    Last edited: 13 Oct 2015
  6. DavidMarq

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 2 Jul 2004

    Posts: 1,535

    Location: Stevenage

    Putting evolution to one side.

    What motivation could physicists/cosmologists have for measuring the age of the observable universe at 13.7 billion years other than it fits the data?

    What motivation could geologists have for measuring the age of the earth at 4.5 billion years other than it fits the data?
     
  7. Lytton

    Hitman

    Joined: 25 Oct 2014

    Posts: 567

    I haven't had time to reply to your previous post or this properly, but I would implore you to read back over the thread to understand exactly how many branches of science are used to support evolution and how numerous the evidence for each branch is. The key point to take away is that every branch assembles the tree of life in much the same fashion. Better still check talk origins. The evidence is so overwhelming, and if you could quantify it then it would easily outweigh evidence for say the moon's orbit around the earth. We absolutely are there yet, and every new fossil that is dug up compliments the tree of life and thus the history of species. We are constantly expanding and adding to our understanding, and unsurprisingly nothing has yet surfaced that throws evolution overboard. If you believe that mutations create change but refute macro evolution then you absolutely must be able to explain the nature of the arbitrary cap that prevents mutations from accumulating and speciation from occurring. You should at least have a rudimentary explanation of what this cap mechanism is or how it might work. The only stigma attached to criticising evolution pertains to the usual lack of welly behind the criticism. Typically the arguments amount to incredulity and little else, there is little substance or criticism of techniques involved. The problem particularly arises because the way of interpreting the evidence isn't really that subjective, it is what it is. If you could demonstrate to me that my measurement of a table length was inaccurate then that is legitimate stuff. If you told me that you disagree with the way I interpret my tape-measure, but then don't really offer the correct method of interpretation, then your criticism is likely to not be taken seriously by others. Crying about radiometric dating accuracy or demanding impossible things like witnessing some sort of accelerated version of macro-evolution in real-time with the naked eye is just absurd. What exactly are the bits that don't convince you? Which measurements do you have particular problems with? Can you be specific about something that troubles you? Most of all, if you think a measurement or reading is incorrect, can you provide the correct/improved method of interpretation? If I share 98-99% of my genetic material with a Chimp, if my chromosome 2 corresponds with two versions of his chromosomes that have fused, and my anatomy is very similar to his, and his social behaviour bares some resemblance to human social behaviour, and his embryo stages are very similar to ours, and we find numerous fossil examples of similar lifeforms that appear to converge, corresponding with discoveries in animal population movements and geological changes.....................then how else do you expect me to piece these things together. Why would I not suppose that we have a common ancestor?

    I hate to harp on about it but my day job is in a diagnostic genetics lab, specifically Sanger sequencing. Everything I do relies on the observable facts of mutations. We have a Christian geologist in here who has no trouble reconciling faith with evolution. If you believe in a god that can do literally anything, why would the evolution part be the bit that you have difficulty believing? Setting the process of evolution in motion would be child's play for an all powerful creator.
     
    Last edited: 13 Oct 2015
  8. DampDog

    Mobster

    Joined: 19 Oct 2010

    Posts: 2,527

    Location: North Staffs

    While this definitely an early learner explanation of "Evolution" it does explain how many branches of the sciences all work together to build a complete picture.



    Moreover with simple things like the age of the earth geology/palaeontology pointed to that fact even before the advent of modern dating techniques. Also even sciences looking in the opposite direction observing the visible universe concluded the earth to be very, very, very old. 4.5 billion years. Very rarely dose one branch of science produce a conclusion, more often than not several branches reach the same conclusion from different areas of research. The proof is that these initial theories can be tested and make predictions. Just like Newton and others used his theory of gravity to predict the positions of the planets and even those that couldn't be directly observed.

    Obviously this is going to be wasted on everyone in this thread. Those that follow evolution will probably know it already and Kedge/win8.1 will simply ignore it again or spit out another Bible quote. (Which probably wasn't written by it's purported author of even within a few 10's of decades of when they supposedly lived, even if you assume it's translation form earlier document were done accurately)

    And lets be honest it stopped being any sort of meaningful debate many pages ago. A rational argument needs rational people on both sides. Fare play to those that keep trying.


    Oh "soup" I thought it was compulsory to use the word somewhere!!!
     
    Last edited: 13 Oct 2015
  9. Diddums

    Capodecina

    Joined: 24 Oct 2012

    Posts: 21,454

    Location: London

    The sooner humans as a species throw all religion in the bin the sooner we can evolve together rather than chop each other to bits based on outdated books written about deities that never existed in the first place.
     
  10. win8.1

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 30 Apr 2014

    Posts: 681

    The further a society gets away from God/Christ and His Word the more ungodly they become even counting evil good and good evil. So as athiest's and pagans and false religions without God/Christ have butchered millions over the years building a society based on these depraved standards is folly.
     
  11. Diddums

    Capodecina

    Joined: 24 Oct 2012

    Posts: 21,454

    Location: London

    And let's ignore the millions if people butchered in the name of religion over the years then shall we? Spoken as a true religionist. You carry on cherry picking the truths that suit you buddy. Us here in the real world will continue carrying the baton of human evolution ;)
     
  12. win8.1

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 30 Apr 2014

    Posts: 681

    No I would not ignore any false religion killing millions as I don't ignore athiest and paganistic society's doing the same.

    I don't lump those that have received the Gospel and follow the fundamental truths of God/Christ in His Word in with those crowds as it would be wrong to do so.
     
  13. Diddums

    Capodecina

    Joined: 24 Oct 2012

    Posts: 21,454

    Location: London

    You wanna make a case? Get some numbers out. Let's see you compare how many deaths are attributable to christianity compared to atheism and as a bonus, paganism combined.

    I respect people's will to believe but let's not deny that christianity is responsible for many millions more deaths than paganism or atheism.
     
  14. Lytton

    Hitman

    Joined: 25 Oct 2014

    Posts: 567

    When did society become paganistic? Did I miss something? There's a few people in Hereford that like to dress as merlin and sing songs to the moon but I'm pretty sure paganism has little to no influence on government, economics or mainstream culture. Not that I should be particularly surprised by kedge's increasing detachment from reality.
     
  15. win8.1

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 30 Apr 2014

    Posts: 681

    Again as I pointed out before to someone how would a person know who is really Christian/saved as opposed to those who claim to be Christian but are not when they themselves have rejected fundamental biblical truths which would show them the difference.
     
  16. Diddums

    Capodecina

    Joined: 24 Oct 2012

    Posts: 21,454

    Location: London

    Dunno, how would they? As far as I'm aware, it's a choice, you accept god into your life and voila, you're in the club. Am I missing something?
     
  17. win8.1

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 30 Apr 2014

    Posts: 681

    Being saved/a believer/Christian is someone that has seen how lost they really where and found salvation alone in the Lord Jesus Christ and the blood He shed for them on the cross. Now if a person claims to believe yet denies fundamental biblical truths and continues a habitual life of sin and unbelief after professing to know Christ that person is not Christian. If something is done in the name of Christianity yet opposes the fundamental doctrines of Christ then the people who did it are not real believers.
     
  18. Diddums

    Capodecina

    Joined: 24 Oct 2012

    Posts: 21,454

    Location: London

    Aaaaaaand I'm out.
     
  19. RDM

    Capodecina

    Joined: 1 Feb 2007

    Posts: 20,613

    To be fair the biggest mass murderers so far have been atheist (Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao)...