Evolution vs Creation, Youtube series

[ProtoFury]

Originally Posted by Gulp

Newton did great work. When he was corrected, it wasn't as if Einstein discovered that instead of gravity it was magic (which is what the Creationists are saying).

No one is saying that magic did it. We believe a Creator set up the universe and all of its rules. However He chose to work in this universe, whether by creation or evolution, is another story. It's His universe, and He created the rules. That doesn't mean He always has to play by them--the greatest rule-breakage? The resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Originally Posted by Gulp

Yet, it's still the best way to examine the world.

I agree, as far as non-biased opinions go. However, it's nigh impossible to get an unbiased point of view on things. Scientists who are looking for evidence specifically for something will find the "evidence" to suport their claims. Creationist scientists looking for evidence of creation will find plenty of "evidence". Svcientists looking for evolutionary evidence will find their "evidence as well. Scientists looking for evidence of a biological basis for homosexuality will find their"evidence." Back in times of slavery, there was the popular braqnch of science called phrenology, which was used to "prove" white people were superior to black people based upon brain size and skull structure--and they had plenty of "evidence" as well.

Evidence that everyboy doesn't agree on can't be called evidence, although it often is, from a biased perspective. When someone takes evidence that everybody does agree on and attributes it to something, that's totally different. It's a fact that the galaxies move away from each other aster than the speed of light, and the only explanation science has to offer is that, somehow, new spac is being created between them that pushes them even faster than they're moving. Now if someone wants to attribute that solid fact as evidence of a Creator (as I do), I'm okay with that.

But "evidence" gathered from a biased perspective cannot be trustd, if everyone doesn't agree on it.

Originally Posted by Gulp

From what I've seen, parents seem to tell their children, "the world is 6000 years old and humans lived with dinos" and they never seem ready to finish that statement and say, "But that's our faith. The experts have a completely different opinion." Most of that is probably due to the fact that many fundamentalists are not aware of how much evidence there is for evolution.

One--not all experts agree on that. In fact, many top experts do not agree, but they are silenced by their peers, and the media (not just the "liberal media," but all media). In fact, a recent poll showed that around 2/3 of the world's leading scientists are religious in some way or another, in their beliefs and practices.

Two--while there is much evidence for evolution, there is also quite a lot that evolution doesn't explain. Darwin himself noted that if there was ever any inconsistancies in the branching out of species, his own theories would be incorrect. Look up the Precambrian Explosion--that's something Darwin also noted would be a problem if we couldn't sort it out. We still haven't been able to. There's not enough evidence in the fossil record to prove that evolution was responsible for it.

Originally Posted by Gulp

We're not the onestelling nearly all the scientists in the world that they're wrong. Scientists have mountains of evidence. They've done the work. Nothing proves it wrong. On the other side, we have people with no evidence for their claims. They want to claim science, but they don't want to play by the rules of science. They ask questions like "What about the Cambrian Explosion?" but they never seem to be willing to do a simple Google search to see if the scientists have a reasonable, plausible explanation. It's sad that there's such mistrust because even though every person in the world has the capacity to lie, scientists are one of the few groups in the world whose job description involves actively trying to prove themselves wrong for the sake of the harsh truth.

First of all, I was going to bold certain sections of this and answer them in order, and then ended up bolding most everything.

To begin with, not all scientists agree, so we're not telling "nearly all the scientists in the world" that they're wrong. See my earlier response. And in fact, just becuse someone is an evolutionist doesn't mean that they on't think there's a Creator behind all of it--so just saying someone's an evolutionist doesn't mean they aren't Christian, or another religion.

Scientists have mountains of evidence. They've done the work. Nothing proves it wrong." I don't think I need to say much here again, because it just goes to back to the whole "evidence you were trying to find" versus "evidence you attribute to something" point. And, some evidence is doctored and hand-picked--for instance, the "evidence" of similar origins in embryos.

Ernst Haeckle's drawings of embryonic development did not represent random samplings of embryonic development--rather, he hand-picked ones that looked similar to use as his "evidence." On top of that, there are some inconsistencies with his drawings that arise because he altered thm slightly to look even more similar. But then again, this is just me attempting not to argue with "no evience," as you so courteously put it.

Originally Posted by Gulp

"An atheist's desire to be right"? I feel just as passionate about evolution as others feel about their religion. Evolution is the way I learn more about who I am and where I came from. And the best part is that it's the best candidate for being the truth, so I can base my personal discovery on facts rather than faith.

If you are searching for the truth, the bet way to find oiut the truthis to look into both sides of the argument. If you're really dedicated to finding the truth, then I'm going to call you out. I challenge you to read the book The Case for a Creator, by Lee Strobel. It's not an evangelical book or a book dissuading people from evolution, but rather, the approach of one journalist (who was a firm evolutionist) who went around interviewing top creationist scientists to see heir point of view. I'm not trying o convert you, just seeing if you're willing to consider other sides of the argument. If you're really searching for the truth, what do you have to lose?

And I'll close by saying this--something that a friend once told me, when similar arguments came up.

If you're right, and evolution is actually what happened, and there is no Creator, no God, no Heaven or Hell, and this existance is all that there is--then none of this mattered anyway, I've live my life the way I chose to believe, and even though you'd be right, neither of us would be better or worse because of it. You'd gan nothing for it, and I'd lose nothing.

But if I'm right in believing in Jesus Christ, and the fact that however God chose to create life, he did--then you stand to lose everything.

I gues we'll just have to see who's right and who's wrong at the end.

[White Noise]

Originally Posted by Gulp

And they don't really distinguish between micro and macro. Micro + time = macro.

There's something inherently wrong with your logic here. What you're basically saying is that if I were to light a match, I must have been an arsonist in the past.

Originally Posted by Gulp

The experts don't see the conflict regarding the Cambrian Explosion that you do. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

Seems to me that their excuses are:

There are some transitional fossils, like worms with legs.
But worms suddenly developing legs is still quite a stretch.

The animals were there beforehand but didn't fossilize because of environmental conditions.
Sounds like BS to me, since that same page mentions fossils from that time period found in China. Also, they seem to know very little of the conditions at that time, as indicated by their frequent use of the words "may have".

The animals evolved hard body parts because of the evolution of predators.
Again, they fossilized without them. Also, suddenly developing hard body parts still seems like quite a jump in that short of a period of time.

There were animals of that complexity but they were too small for their fossils to be found.
Except that doesn't explain how they suddenly got bigger in a relatively short period of time.

The earth warmed up, opening up new niches.
Except the existence of a new niche would have no impact on mutation rates.

Hox genes were developing at that time.
In multiple organisms. At pretty much the same time. How did they all "know" to develop these genes? Also, if these genes radically alter basic body plans as the site claims they do, wouldn't a mutation to one of these genes create an individual incapable of reproducing with the rest of its species?

Major evolutionary "growth spurts" happened at other times too.
This actually makes the theory weaker, IMO. If numerous, small, random mutations are the only thing changing organisms, how do you explain one sudden, drastic change, yet alone several of them?

As for your question, if you want to attempt to explain away all of the logical holes in Darwinism, let's start with yesterday's rock and roll:

How could a creature evolve a new part (let's go with eyes) with numerous, slight, successive changes over a long period of time, if the mutations are completely useless until the creature has all of them? Keep in mind that not only is the chance each new mutation appearing in the right place incredibly slim, but also having only some of the mutations would most likely be detrimental to the health of the organism.

How could a creature born with a fused chromosome (already an incredibly improbable event) pass on its genes in a population of animals without the fused chromosome?

And here's a few more I thought up this morning:

How could ants and bees evolve eusocial behavior?

How could beavers evolve the behavior to build dams?

How could Antarctic penguins possibly have evolved their specialized means of survival?

[Hal0fan117]

Originally Posted by ProtoFury

If you're right, and evolution is actually what happened, and there is no Creator, no God, no Heaven or Hell, and this existance is all that there is--then none of this mattered anyway, I've live my life the way I chose to believe, and even though you'd be right, neither of us would be better or worse because of it. You'd gan nothing for it, and I'd lose nothing.

But if I'm right in believing in Jesus Christ, and the fact that however God chose to create life, he did--then you stand to lose everything.

I gues we'll just have to see who's right and who's wrong at the end.

I always hated this argument. It's just using fear to convince atheists and agnostics to join your faith. It's true: We do stand to lose everything. But I know that I wouldn't care, heaven or hell.

Consider this, either way your doomed to a life of boredom. the way I've heard hell described, it sounds alright. Your nerve endings burn away pretty quickly, you don't have any thoughts at all either. Sounds nice, eternal peace.

In heaven, your mind becomes one with the creator, you lose all sense of self. Sounds worse than hell, a death without dying.

I prefer an atheists belief, worm-food.

[White Noise]

Originally Posted by Hal0fan117

Consider this, either way your doomed to a life of boredom. the way I've heard hell described, it sounds alright. Your nerve endings burn away pretty quickly, you don't have any thoughts at all either. Sounds nice, eternal peace.

In heaven, your mind becomes one with the creator, you lose all sense of self. Sounds worse than hell, a death without dying.

And where, exactly, have you heard this? Quite a few people would argue the "nerve endings burning away" and "becoming one with your creator" bits...

[Hal0fan117]

I've read the bible through once, but I don't claim to have gotten it from there, although I didn't see anything against it when reading.

The 2 main ideas for heaven I've heard in church and from my uuber christian friend are as follows.

Theory 1)
You go to heaven, and there are pearly gates, and dogs with wings flying around, and your family is there and you all play volleyball and eat cake, and transform into bubbles and God is there and he plays halo with you. Basically the "All Dogs go to Heaven" version.

Theory 2)
The other Heaven I've heard of is the one where you become one with God, infinite wisdom and insight. I wouldn't like this either. This would destroy all of my ideals and personal interests. I would literally become one with God, and become Him. I would lose my self-identity, and go on living in heaven as a husk. God's zombie-slave.

I've heard of several different hells.

Dante's inferno hell, where everybody has their own special place to be tortured. In Dantes Inferno, you have infinite knowledge of the past and future. Satan's joke though, is that in Hell you only even live in the present, so there is no past or future. hah so funny, lol. In other words, you wouldn't even know why your being tortured. This also applies to Purgatory, the afterlife version of "Time-out" for people who would get into heaven, after they sit and think about it. But if that's in hell, then they wouldn't know what to sit and think ABOUT. But Dante's Inferno was filled with holes, so I shouldn't even use it as an example.

I've heard that originally hell was a trench, and instead of a grave, people would throw anyone who broke the law into a hell when they died.

There's the Greek version, which is cool I think. I wouldn't have the coin to cross Styx though XD

And the version I'm talking about is the one where you sit in an eternal pit of fire and exist. But eventually, you would get used to the pain, just like in heaven, you would get used to having everything you wanted. It would lose it's meaning, and at that point you might as well be dead.

Sorry if this was written poorly, I'm sort of also on the phone XD

[White Noise]

Originally Posted by Hal0fan117

Theory 1)
You go to heaven, and there are pearly gates, and dogs with wings flying around, and your family is there and you all play volleyball and eat cake, and transform into bubbles and God is there and he plays halo 'Scape with you. Basically the "All Dogs go to Heaven" version.

Fixed.

Originally Posted by Hal0fan117

Theory 2)
The other Heaven I've heard of is the one where you become one with God, infinite wisdom and insight. I wouldn't like this either. This would destroy all of my ideals and personal interests. I would literally become one with God, and become Him. I would lose my self-identity, and go on living in heaven as a husk. God's zombie-slave.

I don't know where you heard this, but it sounds like Hinduism... definitely not Biblical.

The Bible is a tad vauge with its descriptions of heaven, I'm afraid. Some say that's because it's so great it's beyond our current level of comprehesion. I honestly don't know what it's supposed to be like for certain, and if I found out I wouldn't be able to tell you.

Originally Posted by Hal0fan117

Dante's inferno hell, where everybody has their own special place to be tortured. In Dantes Inferno, you have infinite knowledge of the past and future. Satan's joke though, is that in Hell you only even live in the present, so there is no past or future. hah so funny, lol. In other words, you wouldn't even know why your being tortured. This also applies to Purgatory, the afterlife version of "Time-out" for people who would get into heaven, after they sit and think about it. But if that's in hell, then they wouldn't know what to sit and think ABOUT. But Dante's Inferno was filled with holes, so I shouldn't even use it as an example.

I've heard that originally hell was a trench, and instead of a grave, people would throw anyone who broke the law into a hell when they died.

There's the Greek version, which is cool I think. I wouldn't have the coin to cross Styx though XD

And the version I'm talking about is the one where you sit in an eternal pit of fire and exist. But eventually, you would get used to the pain, just like in heaven, you would get used to having everything you wanted. It would lose it's meaning, and at that point you might as well be dead.

As for the trench thing, it was compared to a trench where people threw their garbage and cults raped young children. Supposedly it's a place of eternal pain, suffering, and discust. The Dante's Inferno version, though, puts Satan in the position of torturer, which is wrong. He's supposed to be condemned there to suffer just like everybody else.

[Hal0fan117]

He's not in the position of torturer actually.

They describe him as a 3 headed, 8 winged beast, half frozen in ice, at the 9th layer of hell. He has 3 of the worst betrayers in history in his mouths, and Judas is in the middle mouth, with Satan clawing his back for all eternity, and beating his wings to escape, which keeps the ice frozen despite the fact that he's hotter than the sun.

Like I said, full of holes.

Edit: to get us back on topic, I found a funny quote.

I suppose we really aren't that different from our monkey ancestors. I mean we throw just as much crap at each other as they did!

[Gulp]

Originally Posted by White Noise

There's something inherently wrong with your logic here. What you're basically saying is that if I were to light a match, I must have been an arsonist in the past.

What?

I'm saying that small gradual changes over the course 500,000,000 can lead to an entirely unrecognizable animal, especially in animals that reproduce quickly.

Originally Posted by White Noise

Seems to me that their excuses are:

There are some transitional fossils, like worms with legs.
But worms suddenly developing legs is still quite a stretch.

The animals were there beforehand but didn't fossilize because of environmental conditions.
Sounds like BS to me, since that same page mentions fossils from that time period found in China. Also, they seem to know very little of the conditions at that time, as indicated by their frequent use of the words "may have".

The animals evolved hard body parts because of the evolution of predators.
Again, they fossilized without them. Also, suddenly developing hard body parts still seems like quite a jump in that short of a period of time.

There were animals of that complexity but they were too small for their fossils to be found.
Except that doesn't explain how they suddenly got bigger in a relatively short period of time.

The earth warmed up, opening up new niches.
Except the existence of a new niche would have no impact on mutation rates.

How genes were developing at that time.
In multiple organisms. At pretty much the same time. How did they all "know" to develop these genes? Also, if these genes radically alter basic body plans as the site claims they do, wouldn't a mutation to one of these genes create an individual incapable of reproducing with the rest of its species?

Genes didn't spring up in multiple animals at once. All those animals are descendants of a set of organisms that was gradually evolving genes.

Originally Posted by White Noise

Major evolutionary "growth spurts" happened at other times too.
This actually makes the theory weaker, IMO. If numerous, small, random mutations are the only thing changing organisms, how do you explain one sudden, drastic change, yet alone several of them?

The neocortex of the human brain was a quicker development, in terms of evolution. Scientists using evolution predicted that if the brain experienced quick growth spurts, then there must be some explanation and the most likely culprit would be the environment. Something different from what it's ancestors were dealing. Recently they found evidence that Africa went through a long period of time where for 1000 years it would be a marsh or a gigantic lake. Every thousand years or so the environment was fluctuating between those two. This is exactly the sort of instance that causes quick changes in evolution.

Originally Posted by White Noise

As for your question, if you want to attempt to explain away all of the logical holes in Darwinism, let's start with yesterday's rock and roll:

How could a creature evolve a new part (let's go with eyes) with numerous, slight, successive changes over a long period of time, if the mutations are completely useless until the creature has all of them? Keep in mind that not only is the chance each new mutation appearing in the right place incredibly slim, but also having only some of the mutations would most likely be detrimental to the health of the organism.

Here's a short video by a biologist that updated evolution in 1976 by showing that evolution was gene-centered. He explains the evolution of the eye.

BTW, the mutation would occur in the same place for the same reason that your body knew where to put your feet. You are currently filled with lots of mutations. Many mutations don't have an effect on the body. If it occurred in a vital section of the DNA then you might die for various health reasons. But it could something a simple as your body processed glucose very efficiently.

Originally Posted by White Noise

How could a creature born with a fused chromosome (already an incredibly improbable event) pass on its genes in a population of animals without the fused chromosome?

And here's a few more I thought up this morning:

How could ants and bees evolve eusocial behavior?

How could beavers evolve the behavior to build dams?

How could Antarctic penguins possibly have evolved their specialized means of survival?

The question are all explained by the very basic ideas behind evolution. The answer to all of those question is that those are behaviors that developed gradually by animals that survived whatever their condition: prey, environment, food scarcity.

The rest of your questions (which I just didn't feel like answering individually) can be answered tentatively with this question:

What is more likely:

A) Without needing to provide an alternate explanation or evidence to the contrary, the websites and books you've read are correct.

B) If nearly all of the experts aren't worried, then perhaps you are making a bigger deal out of this than necessary. Assuming that some of these questions haven't already been answered, the scientists have made very reasonable, plausible hypotheses, they are making predictions about the kind of things that could cause such changes, and they are looking for evidence to support or refute their ideas.

[ProtoFury]

Wow, Hal0fan117, you sure do have things mixed up. I'd be a little more knowledgeable about these thing before you go prodding around. Gulp at least knows what he's talking about.

"I always hated this argument. It's just using fear to convince atheists and agnostics to join your faith. It's true: We do stand to lose everything. But I know that I wouldn't care, heaven or hell."

It's not using fear at all. If you don't care, then there's nothing to fear. If you believe that you are correct and we're religious nuts, you have absolutely nothing to fear. If you feel you havereason to fear, then you've got at least part of you dsaying that we just might be right--which would explain your running away from religion--reaction formation. (Psychology. Look it up.)

And I'd care f I were you. See next reply.

"Consider this, either way your doomed to a life of boredom. the way I've heard hell described, it sounds alright. Your nerve endings burn away pretty quickly, you don't have any thoughts at all either. Sounds nice, eternal peace."

First off, no life of boredom. I'm no Amish or Quaker--I have a totally fun and fulfilling life. Do I stay awya from certain tings? Yes--but they are thing that aren't hurting my quality of life by abstaining from them. In fact, there are few things the Bible says specifically not to do--and most of these hurt your quality of life by doing them. I definitely wouldn't get a kick out of killing someone, and if you don't think adultery can hurt your quality of life, you obviously haven't been though or witnessed the heartaches of divorce and torn homes. Your argment here is totally unfounded. I'm sure even Gulp would lump you into the category of arguing without any evidence on this one.

Secondly--you have one warped view of Heavn and Hell. I don't know what pipe you were smoking when you came up with these, or when you were supposedly reading your way through the Bible, but you've got it all wrong. First of all, you apparently missed all the descriptions of Hell in the Bible:

"And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matthew 25:30)

"And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom" (Luke 16:23).

"The sorrows of hell compassed me about; the snares of death prevented me;" (2 Samuel 22:6).

"Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;" (II Thessalonians 1:9).

"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death" (Revelation 21:.

"Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched" (Mark 9:44).

"And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit" (Revelation 9:2).

"And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name" (Revelation 14:11).

"And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame " (Luke 16:24). The rich man wanted water but could not get any.

Just to name a few. Endless torment, burning, wailing and gnashing of teeth, a second death... Not so peaceful, i it? Downright scary. You won't get used to the pain there. It won't be an earthly, physical pain. It will be a tormenting pain, of what was lost, what could have been if you'd chosen the right path (Heaven), and, the worst torment possible--the eternal seperation from God.

Besides, even if you want to take it in terms of physical pain, your point is invalid. You don't always get used to physical pain. There are plenty of disorders that cause you to feel pain that doesn't go away, ever--Fibro Mialgia is one, and another would be phantom pains from lost limbs. Don't believe me on thatlast one? Talk to plenty of Vietnam war vets. Ask them if the pain has gotten any easier over the years. And be prepared to run.

Now Heaven: definitely not what you say, where we all become part of the Creator. Here's some examples.

"But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." (1 Corinthians 2:9)

"Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great [is] your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you." (Matthew 5:12)

"And the four beasts had each of them six wings about [him]; and [they were] full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come. And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever, The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." (Revelation 4:8-11)

"Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field." (Matthew 13:44)

"Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven." (Luke 10:20)

"And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." (Revelation 21:4)

Just some descriptions of what goes on in Heaven. Of the actual place:

"And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God [is] with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, [and be] their God.
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
9. And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.
10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,
11 Having the glory of God: and her light [was] like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal;
12 And had a wall great and high, [and] had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are [the names] of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:
13 On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates.
14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
15 And he that talked with me had a golden reed to measure the city, and the gates thereof, and the wall thereof.
16 And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal.
17 And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred [and] forty [and] four cubits, [according to] the measure of a man, that is, of the angel.
18 And the building of the wall of it was [of] jasper: and the city [was] pure gold, like unto clear glass.
19 And the foundations of the wall of the city [were] garnished with all manner of precious stones. The first foundation [was] jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald;
20 The fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolite; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, a topaz; the tenth, a chrysoprasus; the eleventh, a jacinth; the twelfth, an amethyst.
21 And the twelve gates [were] twelve pearls; every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city [was] pure gold, as it were transparent glass.
22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb [is] the light thereof.
24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.
25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.
26 And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.
27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither [whatsoever] worketh abomination, or [maketh] a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life." (Revelation 21:1-27)

Things definitely don't just get merged into God in the end. The Bible CLEARLY states that the old Heaven and old Earth pass away, and God creates a new Heaven and new Earth, which will be forever inhabited by his faithful followers. So, especially if you've read the Bible the whole way through, you should go back and check your facts.

I don't mean to sound all high-and-mighty or condescending--but you've gotten pretty offensive. Discussion bfoe may have bee heated, but it was civil.

[jschild]

I see no one has still explained why humans develop gills while an embryo and why we contain the genetic information for tails.

Why do whales contain the genetic information to make legs and feet.

Why do chicken contain the genetic information to make teeth.

Why do snake develop hind legs while an embryo?

Why do you have such a crappily designed appendix?

Why are our eyes so poorly designed they have a blind spot?

Why do creationists tend to avoid this questions so bad since no one has responded to any of these questions.

[Bonecrusher]

Originally Posted by ProtoFury

If you're right, and evolution is actually what happened, and there is no Creator, no God, no Heaven or Hell, and this existance is all that there is--then none of this mattered anyway, I've live my life the way I chose to believe, and even though you'd be right, neither of us would be better or worse because of it. You'd gan nothing for it, and I'd lose nothing.

But if I'm right in believing in Jesus Christ, and the fact that however God chose to create life, he did--then you stand to lose everything.

I gues we'll just have to see who's right and who's wrong at the end.

That is just a simplified version of Pascal's Wager.

Besides, why did I need to be taught to believe in God by other people? I should see God, like Moses or something. If he is ubiquitous it isn't like it is a problem for him.

But, as I read wikipedia,

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

I realized there are too many holes in both sides.

What I do think is twofold:
Regardless of whether or not you believe in God, it shouldn't/won't affect whether or not you get into heaven.
As a result of the previous statement, regardless of whether or not you believe in God, it shouldn't change the way you live your life.

Spoiler Alert!

I am a sucker for that wikipedia series. I also encourage you to read them all.

[Hal0fan117]

Originally Posted by ProtoFury

Wow, Hal0fan117, you sure do have things mixed up. I'd be a little more knowledgeable about these thing before you go prodding around. Gulp at least knows what he's talking about.

I already don't like your tone. >>

Originally Posted by ProtoFury

"I always hated this argument. It's just using fear to convince atheists and agnostics to join your faith. It's true: We do stand to lose everything. But I know that I wouldn't care, heaven or hell."

It's not using fear at all. If you don't care, then there's nothing to fear. If you believe that you are correct and we're religious nuts, you have absolutely nothing to fear. If you feel you have reason to fear, then you've got at least part of you saying that we just might be right--which would explain your running away from religion--reaction formation. (Psychology. Look it up.)

And I'd care f I were you. See next reply.

You are using fear. Maybe I didn't explain it well enough, I'm sure there are people on this board who can explain it better, but it's a fear tactic, just like how in church they tell you to pray, and fast, and beleive, and confess, or whatever X religion does for Y event. And if you don't, you'll go to hell.

What I don't understand is how anyone could be so sure that by not beleiving I would go to hell. Doesn't that seem a bit harsh for being a skeptic? A skeptic of a possible God that could exist, because a book said so? If I were going to base all of my faith on a book, I think I would pray to Rand Al'thor, cause I liked it better.

And I'm taking Psychology 101 now, I know what reaction formation is thank you. And thanks for assuming I didn't know.

Originally Posted by ProtoFury

"Consider this, either way your doomed to a life of boredom. the way I've heard hell described, it sounds alright. Your nerve endings burn away pretty quickly, you don't have any thoughts at all either. Sounds nice, eternal peace."

First off, no life of boredom. I'm no Amish or Quaker--I have a totally fun and fulfilling life. Do I stay awya from certain tings? Yes--but they are thing that aren't hurting my quality of life by abstaining from them. In fact, there are few things the Bible says specifically not to do--and most of these hurt your quality of life by doing them. I definitely wouldn't get a kick out of killing someone, and if you don't think adultery can hurt your quality of life, you obviously haven't been though or witnessed the heartaches of divorce and torn homes. Your argment here is totally unfounded. I'm sure even Gulp would lump you into the category of arguing without any evidence on this one.

The only "evidence" I have are the teachings I've heard in the different churches I've been to. And I wasn't saying that christians lead boring lives, I'm saying that right now in my life, I can get whatever I want whenever I want. I'm living in a sort of heaven right now, and it's hell. I don't have to work for anything, I'm waited on hand and foot, I don't have to try for anything. Heaven would be boring, because that's how I've heard it described, you live in eternal bliss, which gets boring.

Originally Posted by ProtoFury

Secondly--you have one warped view of Heavn and Hell. I don't know what pipe you were smoking when you came up with these, or when you were supposedly reading your way through the Bible, but you've got it all wrong. First of all, you apparently missed all the descriptions of Hell in the Bible:

"And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matthew 25:30)

"And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom" (Luke 16:23).

"The sorrows of hell compassed me about; the snares of death prevented me;" (2 Samuel 22:6).

"Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;" (II Thessalonians 1:9).

"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death" (Revelation 21:.

"Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched" (Mark 9:44).

"And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit" (Revelation 9:2).

"And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name" (Revelation 14:11).

"And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame " (Luke 16:24). The rich man wanted water but could not get any.

Just to name a few. Endless torment, burning, wailing and gnashing of teeth, a second death... Not so peaceful, i it? Downright scary. You won't get used to the pain there. It won't be an earthly, physical pain. It will be a tormenting pain, of what was lost, what could have been if you'd chosen the right path (Heaven), and, the worst torment possible--the eternal seperation from God.

I'm not saying the pain would go away, I'm saying that if you started having headaches all the time, you would eventually forget about them. The pain would still exist, and it would probably be pretty bad at first, but you would get used to it after a while, and then there would be peace.

Originally Posted by ProtoFury

Besides, even if you want to take it in terms of physical pain, your point is invalid. You don't always get used to physical pain. There are plenty of disorders that cause you to feel pain that doesn't go away, ever--Fibro Mialgia is one, and another would be phantom pains from lost limbs. Don't believe me on thatlast one? Talk to plenty of Vietnam war vets. Ask them if the pain has gotten any easier over the years. And be prepared to run.

You assume I wouldn't beleive you about phantom pain? It does sound like your talking down at me. I'm sure if they had to live with the pain for all eternity, and it wasn't just on and off, they would get used to it. Eventually, you just stop recognizing it.

Originally Posted by ProtoFury

Now Heaven: definitely not what you say, where we all become part of the Creator. Here's some examples.

"But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." (1 Corinthians 2:9)

"Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great [is] your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you." (Matthew 5:12)

"And the four beasts had each of them six wings about [him]; and [they were] full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come. And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever, The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." (Revelation 4:8-11)

"Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field." (Matthew 13:44)

"Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven." (Luke 10:20)

"And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." (Revelation 21:4)

Just some descriptions of what goes on in Heaven. Of the actual place:

"And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God [is] with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, [and be] their God.
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
9. And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.
10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,
11 Having the glory of God: and her light [was] like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal;
12 And had a wall great and high, [and] had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are [the names] of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:
13 On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates.
14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
15 And he that talked with me had a golden reed to measure the city, and the gates thereof, and the wall thereof.
16 And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal.
17 And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred [and] forty [and] four cubits, [according to] the measure of a man, that is, of the angel.
18 And the building of the wall of it was [of] jasper: and the city [was] pure gold, like unto clear glass.
19 And the foundations of the wall of the city [were] garnished with all manner of precious stones. The first foundation [was] jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald;
20 The fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolite; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, a topaz; the tenth, a chrysoprasus; the eleventh, a jacinth; the twelfth, an amethyst.
21 And the twelve gates [were] twelve pearls; every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city [was] pure gold, as it were transparent glass.
22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb [is] the light thereof.
24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.
25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.
26 And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.
27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither [whatsoever] worketh abomination, or [maketh] a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life." (Revelation 21:1-27)

Things definitely don't just get merged into God in the end. The Bible CLEARLY states that the old Heaven and old Earth pass away, and God creates a new Heaven and new Earth, which will be forever inhabited by his faithful followers. So, especially if you've read the Bible the whole way through, you should go back and check your facts.

So I'm wrong because you interpreted the bible differently than I did? The Bible didn't clearly state much, if anything. You could read the same book twice and walk away with a different view point. And again, this is what I was taught in a Christian church, the few times I did go with my friends. Typically, his mom would drag us with her before a YuGiOh event or something. Most of the Christians I've asked about heaven have given me one of those two responses.

Originally Posted by ProtoFury

I don't mean to sound all high-and-mighty or condescending--but you've gotten pretty offensive. Discussion before may have been heated, but it was civil.

Offensive? What did I say? Until now I don't think I've said anything particularly offensive. Just that I really hate that particular argument for joining Christianity, and my reasons why. I didn't speak against you specifically, I didn't put down Christians as a whole, I just expressed what I had heard, my interpretations.

Sorry I offended, but what happened to turn the other cheek?