Silkroad Online Forums

Code: Select all
Shabam!!! Sub to him! He's got a lot of good shit!

Thats the amazing atheist... Trust me when i say this he makes up alot of shit...

umm... ok.

So it wasn't too long ago while I was on my way to church (there was a meeting before evening service) that I stopped at Domino's and bought 3 pizza's on my way.

When I got there some of the kids eyes got all big eyed and one of them said, "It is the Lord, it is the Lord!" Seems that the children had been praying for pizza. Sure, it was a coincidence. My dad used to be thankful for some of the dumbest things too. Who was he hurting when he thanked God for the parking space that was close to the entrance to the store? I don't call it answered prayer - but whose to say it isn't? When I was a church camp counselor I took care of the kids that were given into my charge by their trusting mothers. Mostly what I did was make sure they had sunscreen on and that they brushed their teeth in between meals. There were lots of crafts and swimming and activities and all that good stuff. Evenings meant gathering around the camp fire and just having fun - you know. Several years later a mother of one of the kids came up to me and thanked me for the "prophecy that I spoke over her son" during the church camp. I do remember noticing leadership qualities in one of the kids and speaking to Joshua about it. He must have took my suggestion about becoming a pastor seriously. His mother blamed me for it.

I told her, "You can blame that one on God, not me."

I've been involved in jail ministry -- basically that just means I've met and spoke to people who have enough time on their hands to think about things. To me, prayer puts me in the right place to listen to others and respond to them better. God allows me to participate in His work. I don't understand this - there is no way that I'm worthy of being called one of His, but this honor is given, not earned. I remember one time when Buck (a guy who was living in a 'half-way house' after serving 15 years for murder) came up to me and said, "Sometimes I just feel like smashing melons."

My reply was, "Buck, that's a feeling that you should try to resist." He chuckled and replied, "Pastor, I know that." I asked him if there were any times he felt better (more at peace) than others and he told me that was what he wanted to talk about. He had started attending a Greek Orthodox church and said that he felt better recently. It was easy to reassure him. Does prayer make me more approachable? I think yes.

The atheist in the video above advocates theft. That's better? Lots of people have their pet rants - me as well, but to say that it's better to steal than pray??? Don't be confused, those who do good are good. The ones that steal and lie and threaten others aren't.

C'mon now.

you are one example of a god-loving churchgoer

he is one example of a god-hating atheist

One person doesn't stand for all.

I've met churchgoers at school who swear, shoplift (when I'm standing right next to them), and make fun of jews. How do you explain that? Seriously your life stories, they don't mean anything when hundreds of other religious people do exactly the opposite of what you stand for.

Just because people go to Church doesn't mean their Christians. There's lots of people out there who go to Church once a week repent of the evil stuff they've done that week and just go out and do the exact same things again. *such as swearing, stealing and being racist towards Jews*

im pretty sure people wouldn't go to church unless they were Christian or being forced to go, just like you'll only find Jews in a synagogue and Muslims in a mosque...

Just because someone just goes to church to confess and then goes and does the stuff all over again that doesn't mean you can take them out of the equation of people who are Christian. Theres good and bad in all walks of life, can't excuse the bad parts just cause they make the good ones look bad.

I didn't mean just cause people sinned they weren't Christians. We all sin it's human nature. I was refering to the people who aren't truly sorry about it and try to change their bad behaviors. Those are the people I was talking about

wonder why this topic is still alive, no one will win in the end...

i was talking about those people too. Many people treat their religion as a burden or a task or 1 stop shop for salvation. The one thing i never understood about catholisism was that after you confess you just say some prayers a couple times and your forgiven, its too easy imo, in most other religions if you do something terribly sinful you have to do some serious repenting. But i digress.

Like it or not those people who just go t church and say they're sorry and don't really mean it still count as christians, maybe not good christians but nonetheless they are a part of the faith even if they don't practice the way they should.

So many baby Christians are not weaned. The message of "forgive me" is the milk of the Word - and yes, God does want this. All Christians are joined into what Jesus was sent to do - he made peace between God and man and those who trust and believe in this are forgiven. Even though all Christians (so-called) are joined into the work - men (every one) will be judged according to their actions. God loves justice.

We are told to leave the "milk of the Word" and to accept the "Meat of the Word" too. The 2nd chapter of James talks about faith without works. "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?"

I think no, faith can not save. Too many take these things to make them like ghosts and because they think like this they call themselves saved. Thinking only and praying only doesn't make anybody better or closer to God. People in churches are very guilty of saying "I'm am godly because I'm getting blessed by god because look at how much more money I'm making than I was." Godliness =/= gain.

It's fun to me to listen to what people on this forum say and I hear so much behind the words that I agree with - even the ones who argue also know the difference between right and wrong.
They (many churchgoers) also hate people and God said that anybody who doesn't love people (who can be seen) cannot love Him (who cannot be seen). I like most atheists that I've met - I don't care to be around hate filled people - and it doesn't matter what they call themselves.

~Granps

Wrong. That is a misconception. Theories are never promoted to laws. No matter how many times you perform an experiment and get the same results, you can never call it a law.

Theories are the core of science. Barotix posted a good comic strip about this:



Technologies are applications of these theories. All the way from the development of medicine to the building of the monitor you're staring at right now are based on theories. By "theories", I do not mean mere guesses as it is defined in casual conversation.

EDIT: Grandpa elaborated more on laws. Check it if you haven't.



When these discussions about the existence of god come up, science and the validity of its theories tend to get mixed up. You are correct. A discussion of god should not reside in the realm of science. It should be in philosophy.

That amazing atheist dude is an angry man. Oh wow, 25 pages.

Unless you're a polytheist.

Then there's a bunch of gods.

Hey wow, wonder when this threads going to be closed / locked.

In short this is what was said.

Person who believes in God: "I believe in God, here's why"
People who don't: "I don't believe in God, here's why"

Back and forth banter ensues followed by "fack mathers".

While there may have been some interesting discussions, the topic has ran its course. You can't prove to someone what they don't want to hear. It's like arguing politics; you believe what you want to believe and you will be stubborn to other's opinions and ideas about your beliefs.

PS: Had fun "foe'ing" some of the individuals in here, specifically the ones whom think they're always right. You can't be right in a topic such as this.

u know what's right tho? emily osment is pretty

There have been many comments about how this thread should be closed and how it's run its course. Perhaps this is true, but I'd be up for another Evol vs. Creation thread if somebody wanted to start it.

Fish Fetus?
We could start with Barotix's idea that Ontogeny and Embryology Recapitulates Phylogeny -- I was actually taught this at the same time scientists were saying that Aborigines were Hominids (sub-human). There is a difference between "micro-evolution" (variation within kinds) and macro-evolution. It would be of great scientific interest should any breed of dog reproduce into something that wasn't a dog, right? But of course that would take millions of years (or so it is said). Still, if it were possible and a dog was able to reproduce into something that wasn't a dog we would have evidence of macro-evolution. Well, that isn't exactly true - the non-dog, or "doggy monster" couldn't be sterile because if it was that could hardly be used to support the theory.

Hopeful Monsters?
Then we are confronted by the new creature (oops - can't use the term creature because it implies a Creator) - we are confronted by the new thing (monster?) whose parents were dogs (sorry language doesn't work well here) -- and its need for a girlfriend monster. Let's say that these cross-kind doggy monsters that take millions of years to appear somehow both come into the world within the lifetime of each other. Male and female mutated they them... right? What's to say that they both appeared in the same part of the world?

Okay, let's answer this by having the parent dogs give miracle birth to two mutant non-doggy-monsters (of each gender) and they aren't sterile. Now the monster would have to be significantly "fitter" than anything it competes with (including all real dogs) in order to survive. This might take billions of years instead of millions if it were even possible and there's the rub. Where is the evidence of the hopeful monsters and their mates? The fossil record shows extinction of various kinds of animals and plants -- but we don't see things like "doggy-monsters" who gradually develop and are significantly different sufficient to call them new kinds. It's an oxymoron, isn't it?

Irreducible Complexity
Evolution has greater problems than that though. When it comes to life starting from star matter organized into simple proteins over time there are many assumptions -- but the greatest is simple this, "If we see it, there must be an explanation." Recently scientists have been ignoring the obvious - it is no longer scientifically possible to say "creation demands a creator". That's a no-no. Instead we are taught that under certain conditions and over a large enough period of time anything is possible. Fact is, "anything" isn't possible. Consider the conundrum of a common mousetrap. There is a certain amount of complexity that is necessary for it to function. Take away the spring or the springboard and it doesn't work. Make one part too big or too small - and no mouse would be caught. Michael Behe defined irreducible Complexity as:




To me it's no problem when others say simply "I don't believe in God" - one poster said that nobody could be "right" in a topic like this, but I'd disagree. When I'm asked if I believe in God - there is no possible way for me to be wrong because my answer applies only to me. How can I be wrong when I say, "Yes" ?

~Granps
PS. I coined the phrase "Male and female mutated they them" just now - I kinda like it.

This is the 21st century.


And Grandpa, I really enjoy reading about debates and fights (not just evolution v. creationism) but if I were you I'd simplify your piece a bit. Not very likely to be read ><

I trust Barotix and a couple others to pick me apart.
I really loved the phrase "Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny" when I first heard it back in the early 60's. Kinda flowed off the tongue - and I went to the dictionary immediately but was disappointed by the meaning. Fishy Fetus is so much better!

It's all good.

I can't explain Macro evolution; Insufficient facts. I could explain natural selection and point to fossils to fill any gaps, but I don't think that will suffice. Especially since you want to see it. It can't be replicated unless given a large enough time line.

One man tried to prove that life came from Ice rather than heat in an experiment where simple celled organism would come from amino acids that he introduced into a controlled environment, but when he died his information went with him. I forgot his name.

Satisfy me by explaining what you wrote about fishy fetus and elephant fetus and other such observations - are you saying that since human reproduction begins with a single cell - all life came from star matter? That's quite a leap even for a believer like me. The fact that an embryo or fetus contains sufficient information within itself to form different functional tissues (arms, legs, muscle, nerves, blood, bone, feathers) causes wonder in me. Where does that information come from? When we try to understand instead of greater understanding new mysteries are created. If a theory is supposed to explain things, shouldn't actually accomplish something before it is accepted universally? Mapping the Human Genome held out great hope for a moment or two -- but now we are confronted by the epigenome. Perhaps one day we will understand the mechanisms that are used to relay information but then we will be confronted with how all this information exploded out of the big bang, right?

It stymies my imagination but then I'm just an ignorant believer in a personal loving God and don't pretend to understand all mysteries of life.

You are reading to deep into it. I was just pointing towards some evidence used to advance the idea of common ancestry, that is; the similarities between different animals* while they're in their embryonic stage (used the wrong term. )


As for the complexity of RNA and DNA, have you heard of the Miller Experiment? I only had enough time to touch up on the basics so here are two articles:

http://www.scienceonline.org/cgi/conten ... 0/5620/745
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/feb/di ... lve-in-ice

BTW, we're still technically in the explosion (I'm sure you knew that already); assuming, of course, that you agree with the theory, which you don't.

So you are saying that because a single cell human embryo is similar to other the embryos of other animals there is a common ancestry?

Form follows function, it does not demand common ancestry. If movement is to be accomplished there has to be some method of locomotion and there are necessarily going to be similarities but this convenient assignment of order (without regard to function) does not force reasonable people to conclude that everything came from star matter and ultimately the big bang.

There are various functions that life itself demands. For instance, all life needs to be able to combine H²O with organic (carbon) based molecules to form sugars for energy. If any kind of life doesn't have this ability -- it needs to consume something that does or it dies. If you are saying that since human reproduction demands a common ancestry in the animal kingdom -- why not go further and say that since a human embryo does not resemble a virus we could not have a common ancestry? Your attempt at logic fails here. It's okay to offer your theory but the conclusion is not demanded by the premises.

I was actually taught that every human embryo went through the entire process of evolution as a fetus while in the womb. We (as students) were subjected to the absurd thought that each animal reproduced every stage of evolution prior to birth. The similarities found in the miracle of human reproduction were used by clumsy scientists to demonstrate false conclusions much to their embarrassment later. It surprises me to hear people spouting such stuff still today.

I'm not saying that "Creationists" haven't made their share of errors but only that the fishy fetus argument doesn't impress me, never did.

You've quoted a couple articles about biochemical abiogenesis and asked if I was familiar with them. They are both using a "bottom up" approach which is similar to asking "What things are needed if life formed spontaneously". Other approaches to the problem are more "top down" which is similar to reverse engineering -- like the thought you advanced about an elephant fetus. The two different approaches to the problem share the same assumption, that science is somehow now restricted to what it can explain by natural elements only. This isn't a new development. According to Aristotle it was a readily observable truth that aphids arise from the dew which falls on plants, fleas from putrid matter, mice from dirty hay, crocodiles from rotting logs at the bottom of bodies of water, and so forth.

There have been many scientific advances since the time of Aristotle of course but so far there has been no proof offered that life came into being of and on its own. Hydrogen, an inert, odorless gas, when compacted to a very tiny space and left to it's own devices can create life. Interesting hypothesis.

I'm just posting what I learned. "Don't shoot the [ignorant] messenger."

Agreed. There were three problems that I noted though - irreducible complexity and hopeful monsters. Care to comment? As far as what I actually know goes, I'm pretty comfortable with saying that I don't know and blaming the whole mystery on God. When He asked Job, "Where where YOU when I hung the empty place in the northern sky?? I took that to mean that I shouldn't get too big for my own britches.

You're right to correct me in that.

Would vestigial structures be a good defense of these "monsters?" If there is a demand for greater complexity due to natural changes then it will be met. Note* AFAIK, Macro evolution is still considered a "gray" area, but it is generally accepted as a reality.

That hits it right on the head as far as I'm concerned. Everybody says "it is generally accepted" but is it? If we didn't have a great need to explain things apart from God's creative power would any of these theories be actually needed? Especially when science tries to explain untestable matters - when they depart from what I call pure science and start speculating about things that by their nature can not be reproduced I become skeptical. Quite a departure, isn't it? Used to be that it was the scientist who was skeptical, and the religious nut who came up with the strange theories.

I actually object to the idea that other people can tell me what I hold to be true. Most of me is wanting to wait until we have enough solid information and factual evidence. Knowledge is increasing almost exponentially these days and I'm comfortable with that. The bible says that knowledge will increase, doesn't it? My objection comes from the belief that knowledge can not save us from our own nature.

It's a scary world - we've spoken about God and Nature and in other threads about Governments and Liberty - I just pray that my life will be extended to the time where I'll personally be able to see and know the answer.


As a believer I have a different idea of what the "Tree of Life" is.

Job spoke from despair to his "friends" saying, It's worth repeating, if worms are my origin, where is my hope?

I've not thanked you recently but I do enjoy our discussion(s) and am personally glad that contrary to many requests this thread has not been locked.

~Granps