Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

[heavycola]

Bavarian Raven wrote:
Quote:
No, I only refer to this with the scientific sense, I still believe fully in God, I may not have seen him, but I've seen and read things of him that I fully believe.


so if none of your five senses tell u its real...and u still believe? that goes against the very nature of survival itself... u have eyes to see...u have s nose to smell... u have senses to tell you what is real and not real...

though one sense can decieve you u have many so u can comprehend what is real and what is a trick...

Who came up with the 5 senses? Scientists, whether they were there already or not, scientists tell you whether it is a sense or not, they skipped an important one though, faith is a sense.

is faith a sense??? I can smell a rose...i can see the rose...i can touch the rose...i can even taste it (yuck)...but if i don't see the rose i am holding i should have blind faith it is still there...???

touch, sense, taste, hearing, sight...we didn't need scientists to tell us we have these...we have always known...it has nothing to do with faith...

If someone tells you there is a rose, but you can't see or feel it. Do you still believe it is there? If so, then that is faith.

i think the word is 'gullibility'

[Neoteny]

Pardon me, but I'm going to go ahead and ignore the current, wonderful conversation and post a reply to Widow's post however many pages back. Forgive me if I was too long-winded. And I might join back in the convo in the next day or two. The holidays are very time consuming. I haven't even had a chance to insult religious people in the other thread recently (not that I do it on purpose).



Ok, it was too long, but I read it anyway. Your first three sections basically sum up to the following idea: “I cannot think of a way in which this could happen.” Speak for yourself. Just because you can’t understand the theories involved doesn’t mean that others can’t. Don’t take this as an insult Widow, because I know you are just repeating things that have already been said before. Anyhow, I have already discussed thermodynamics sufficiently and your probability hypothesis is too painful for me to want to explain, though I suppose I could if anyone actually wants me to. On to the genetics, my favorite:

The fat cat ate the wee bat.
The fat rat ate the wee bat.

Oopzors… where did that information come from?

“The fat ate the wee rat,” is also a complete sentence. It is only illogical because we associate fat with an inactive object. It is still conveying applicable information. Maybe in a world of sentences, shorter sentences that make sense would win out. So your “fat ate the wee rat” would be successful and multiply and pass on its genes to the next generation. Thus, your mutation types argument is thus useless.

Your mutations are random argument confuses me. You don’t use randomness at all but instead bring up chemical resistance. Anyway, of course the resistance was in the population already. If it wasn’t, all the lice would die. Instead the mutation already happened. Mutations, like you said, are not guided by anything, including chemicals. Lice don’t say, “hey there’s this bad chemical, let me mutate.” It’s more like, “where did all my friends go?” The mutation occurred beforehand. Your argument doesn’t lead any credibility toward creationism or against evolution.

You go on to bring up your information hypothesis again, which I’ve already touched on above. The key fault to your argument is that you are assuming that everything is happening by chance. You have mentioned it several times. That is not true. Mutations happen by “chance.” Evolution does not. If your book were subjected to natural selection, all your mutations that caused any loss of information would die and not reproduce. However, books that had mutations like my fat rat/wee bat mutations would be successful and propagate. These could lead to maintenance of information, or even (gasp) addition of information.

“Environmental exposure does not cause mutations.”
I like this statement a lot. I don’t see your reasoning for putting it in and it doesn’t make any sense. I myself have caused mutations in yeast by altering environmental conditions. UV light is a known mutagen. Ethidium bromide is a known mutagen. Environmental exposure does cause mutations. What the hell are you talking about? Seriously?

Moving on, natural selection is not random. You are missing the point. Mutation is random. A bird eating a green beetle is not. You are wrong again in saying natural selection should be adding information. That is mutation’s job. Natural selection selects for or against a mutation.

Mutation has never been beneficial? You silly person you. Once again, I have performed experiments to that nature. Take a bunch of E. coli that will not grow on ampicillin and expose them to UV light. Try to grow some colonies on ampicillin agar and voila, if you do it enough, you will grow colonies. I didn’t check any of your sources but they are clearly wrong. It’s really hilarious when people tell me that things that I’ve done are impossible. Also, for a current experiment I am working on, I have isolated several mutated yeast strains that grow brown on an iron medium. Some do grow slower but at least one does not show any signs of weakness and tends to act just like wild-type yeast. So even if the mutations aren’t beneficial, they are not always harmful. The slow growth issue is probably a completely separate mutation from the brown coloring. You are wrong again.

As far as your “each gene affects everything” statement goes, most genes have multiple effects, but they definitely don’t affect everything and not all genes have multiple effects.

Mathematical improbability is countered by natural selection, blah blah harmful mutations again blah blah. And a review. I won’t cite anything for this section because it can all be found in a genetics textbook. Or talkorigins.com. And if I ever get published, I'll send everyone a URL.

As far as the geology goes, I’ve taken that class too and still have the textbook. Try reading one. I’m tired of responding. I might go through the geology later if anyone is still taking it seriously.

The main fault that I find is that you are assuming creationism is a viable alternative. Even if your faulty claims aren’t disputed by creationism, doesn’t make it an alternative. “Evolution isn’t true so creationism must be” is intellectual laziness. If you can contribute to disregarding evolution by natural selection in a meaningful way, by all mean, go for it. But I guarantee you, any successful feasible alternative to natural selection will not be creationism. Believe it if you want, but please don’t pass your laziness on to your kids.

Sorry if it’s too long guys, I tried to keep it concise. I figured since all we're doing is pointing out faults in an argument, I'd do the same.

[Bavarian Raven]

Pardon me, but I'm going to go ahead and ignore the current, wonderful conversation and post a reply to Widow's post however many pages back. Forgive me if I was too long-winded. And I might join back in the convo in the next day or two. The holidays are very time consuming. I haven't even had a chance to insult religious people in the other thread recently (not that I do it on purpose).



Ok, it was too long, but I read it anyway. Your first three sections basically sum up to the following idea: “I cannot think of a way in which this could happen.” Speak for yourself. Just because you can’t understand the theories involved doesn’t mean that others can’t. Don’t take this as an insult Widow, because I know you are just repeating things that have already been said before. Anyhow, I have already discussed thermodynamics sufficiently and your probability hypothesis is too painful for me to want to explain, though I suppose I could if anyone actually wants me to. On to the genetics, my favorite:

The fat cat ate the wee bat.
The fat rat ate the wee bat.

Oopzors… where did that information come from?

“The fat ate the wee rat,” is also a complete sentence. It is only illogical because we associate fat with an inactive object. It is still conveying applicable information. Maybe in a world of sentences, shorter sentences that make sense would win out. So your “fat ate the wee rat” would be successful and multiply and pass on its genes to the next generation. Thus, your mutation types argument is thus useless.

Your mutations are random argument confuses me. You don’t use randomness at all but instead bring up chemical resistance. Anyway, of course the resistance was in the population already. If it wasn’t, all the lice would die. Instead the mutation already happened. Mutations, like you said, are not guided by anything, including chemicals. Lice don’t say, “hey there’s this bad chemical, let me mutate.” It’s more like, “where did all my friends go?” The mutation occurred beforehand. Your argument doesn’t lead any credibility toward creationism or against evolution.

You go on to bring up your information hypothesis again, which I’ve already touched on above. The key fault to your argument is that you are assuming that everything is happening by chance. You have mentioned it several times. That is not true. Mutations happen by “chance.” Evolution does not. If your book were subjected to natural selection, all your mutations that caused any loss of information would die and not reproduce. However, books that had mutations like my fat rat/wee bat mutations would be successful and propagate. These could lead to maintenance of information, or even (gasp) addition of information.

“Environmental exposure does not cause mutations.”
I like this statement a lot. I don’t see your reasoning for putting it in and it doesn’t make any sense. I myself have caused mutations in yeast by altering environmental conditions. UV light is a known mutagen. Ethidium bromide is a known mutagen. Environmental exposure does cause mutations. What the hell are you talking about? Seriously?

Moving on, natural selection is not random. You are missing the point. Mutation is random. A bird eating a green beetle is not. You are wrong again in saying natural selection should be adding information. That is mutation’s job. Natural selection selects for or against a mutation.

Mutation has never been beneficial? You silly person you. Once again, I have performed experiments to that nature. Take a bunch of E. coli that will not grow on ampicillin and expose them to UV light. Try to grow some colonies on ampicillin agar and voila, if you do it enough, you will grow colonies. I didn’t check any of your sources but they are clearly wrong. It’s really hilarious when people tell me that things that I’ve done are impossible. Also, for a current experiment I am working on, I have isolated several mutated yeast strains that grow brown on an iron medium. Some do grow slower but at least one does not show any signs of weakness and tends to act just like wild-type yeast. So even if the mutations aren’t beneficial, they are not always harmful. The slow growth issue is probably a completely separate mutation from the brown coloring. You are wrong again.

As far as your “each gene affects everything” statement goes, most genes have multiple effects, but they definitely don’t affect everything and not all genes have multiple effects.

Mathematical improbability is countered by natural selection, blah blah harmful mutations again blah blah. And a review. I won’t cite anything for this section because it can all be found in a genetics textbook. Or talkorigins.com. And if I ever get published, I'll send everyone a URL.

As far as the geology goes, I’ve taken that class too and still have the textbook. Try reading one. I’m tired of responding. I might go through the geology later if anyone is still taking it seriously.

The main fault that I find is that you are assuming creationism is a viable alternative. Even if your faulty claims aren’t disputed by creationism, doesn’t make it an alternative. “Evolution isn’t true so creationism must be” is intellectual laziness. If you can contribute to disregarding evolution by natural selection in a meaningful way, by all mean, go for it. But I guarantee you, any successful feasible alternative to natural selection will not be creationism. Believe it if you want, but please don’t pass your laziness on to your kids.

Sorry if it’s too long guys, I tried to keep it concise. I figured since all we're doing is pointing out faults in an argument, I'd do the same.

thankyou.....

We have been warring constantly for 3000 years, less and less people believe in God, he needs to rethink his strategy perhaps

so true

[Neoteny]

Oops... I said my yeast grow brown on iron medium when they really grow brown on copper medium. That also makes a little more sense... Sheesh, you'd think I'd know my own research...

[Frigidus]

For the sake of remaining a reasonable length I won't quote Neotony, but that was a very nice rebuttal. It always helps to have someone with hands-on experience on your side in an argument over evolution. Otherwise people start demanding sources you haven't seen since junior high.

[Snorri1234]

Allright, time for a more point by point rebuttal:

WITHOUT USING YOUR BIBLE:
is there any actual evidence that you can point
to that shows the earth was created?


There is no evidence either way to prove the earth was created or just happened by chance.

There are people out there who will say we have evidence the earth is young. There are people out there who say we have evidence the earth is old. The problem with BOTH side of this issue is that we can’t prove either.

Yes we can prove that the earth is older. The only reason to say the earth isn't old would be if God created the planet and universe with apparent age. While this could be true, it also means God is tricking us, which doesn't sound like a very nice God. And if he is not nice, why worship him?

Now I know one of the first things people will say (or have said in the past) is that they don't believe in a creator because it can't be proven and that they only believe in what science call tell them.

Well for those people I have some questions:
1) Can you really prove there is a creator?
If a creator existed before our universe and if that creator made our universe, the creator then exists outside our universe. And if the creator exists outside our universe, why does anyone think that we as humans should or could be able to "detect" or prove the existence.

2) Is believing only what science can prove a good idea?
By only believing in what science can prove, a person is saying that there is nothing beyond the scope of science. That eventually with enough time, all information about the universe is attainable to mankind. And if something is not provable then it is not real.

1. Has nothing at all to do with evolution.
2. It's not about proving so much as about disproving. God cannot be disproven, scientific theories can.

1) This assumes that everything is eventually understandable from a scientific perspective. By saying I will only believe in what science can tell me, a person is saying that nothing exists outside the realm of scientific observation. But no one can prove that there is nothing outside the realm of science so they can't really say that those things do not exist.

2) This assumes that man can eventually understand all that is understandable. Is this something that can be proven? When would man be able to say that everything is understood? [/list]
So based on these two points, there is a possibility that things exist that are beyond our comprehension, things beyond our physical realm and understanding.

This has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. It's merely an attack on atheists, which is merely a subsection of the people who believe in evolution. I don't think man can ever know everything and certainly not understand everything.
I actually know there are things behind our comprehension. Infinity for example, you can try to understand it all you want but you will never succeed.

I do not understand what was your point with this post, because if you wanted to point out that we can't prove (or disproof) God one way or another and that there can be things we cannot explain, then you just pointed out 2 obvious things.

[Snorri1234]

Part 2:

Evolution cannot be proved(1)
If evolution is taking place today, it operates too slowly to be measurable, and, therefore, is outside the realm of empirical science. To transmute one kind of organism into a higher kind of organism would presumably take millions of years, and no team of scientific observers is available to make measurements on any such experiment.

First, do not talk about Higher kind of organism. Evolution does not deal with Higher or Lower.
Second, there have been many cases of species turning into other species. Sure, those species are not much different from the other, but they cannot reproduce with the original species anymore so it’s not too much of a stretch to assume they can change more and more over time. Especially since the earth is old enough for those millions of years.
Third, evolution does not solely rely on this.

-The small variations in organisms which are observed to take place today are irrelevant to this question, since there is no way to prove that these changes within present kinds eventually change the kinds into different, higher kinds. Since small variations (including mutations) are as much to be expected in the creation model as in the evolution model, they are of no value in discriminating between the two models.

No, but the variations do lend credibility to the assumption of species transforming into other species. They are not proof without the rest of evolutionary proofs.

-Even if modern scientists could ever actually achieve the artificial creation of life from non-life, or of higher kinds from lower kinds, in the laboratory, this would not prove in any way that such changes did, or even could, take place in the past by random natural processes.

Not random.


* insert a bunch of outdated sources that have no relevance*

Now we will look at the two models and compare the differences
The Evolution Model(8)
The evolutionary system attempts to explain the origin, development, and meaning of all things in terms of natural laws and processes, which operate today as they have in the past. No extraneous processes, requiring the special activity of an external agent, or Creator, are permitted. The universe, in all its aspects, evolves itself into higher levels of order (particles to people) by means of its innate properties.

Thus evolution entails a self-contained universe, in which its innate laws develop everything into higher levels of organization. Particles evolve into elements, elements into complex chemicals, complex chemicals into simple living systems, simple life forms into complex life, complex animal life into man.

Summarizing, evolution is: (1) naturalistic; (2) self-contained; (3) non-purposive; (4) directional; (5) irreversible; (6) universal; and, (7) continuing.

Basically: No.
Evolution does not deal with the origin of life, only what happened afterwards.

Why do you believe, what you believe?
The issue then becomes, which sides conclusion is more likely, is more probable, is more consistent when looking at each area: geology, physics, genetics, biology, etc, which side tends to be more explainable more consistent across each area of study?
Reason for favoring evolution is not because of scientific evidence

Yes it is. Everything points towards it. The guy you quoted said that in a time there was virtually nothing known about genetics, and radiometric dating wasn’t even invented.

-Is it more likely that a creator made everything or it just happened by chance?

Not chance. And yes it’s more likely.

-A creator/god may not be provable but does that mean that a creator/god does not exist?

Has nothing to do with evolution.

[Neoteny]

Another few points I'd like to bring up involve fossilization. Widow is again just asserting that there is no logical way that fossils could have formed except through rapid burial. This is wrong on two points:

1. Bones are made of calcium phosphate which, like most calcium compounds, tends to resist decay fairly well. It's not uncommon to find chicken bones, pet bones, or any other bones (I tend to find quite a few deer bones here in the south) in your back yard or walking around in the woods. So the skeletons of all these vertebrates lay around for awhile until they finally decompose, are eaten by scavengers, or are buried. Sure not all of them will get buried, but a reasonable amount can (and still do) get buried. And then the fossilization process continues as projected.

2. You seriously can't think of any situations in which a little fish will die and fall onto a bigger fish and fossilize? Let's use a little logic here. This is just off the top of my head: imagine a little crag in some rocks. Fish love those things. If a fish dies in there, another fish will probably take it's spot. It might live there until it dies and sink to the bottom of the crag onto the other fish. Or maybe it doesn't. But maybe the next one does. Or the next one. Or the next. Maybe the little fish died first. Or the big one. Or maybe they lived in there together, and a red tide swept in killing them both at the same time, and they settled to the bottom in that position. Remember, we're talking millions and millions of years here, and none of the above suggestions required rapid burial. The odds may seem small to our minds, but over, say, 65 million years, something that happens once in a million years will happen about 65 times. And I doubt that fish deaths are quite that improbable...

And your whale fossil brings to mind a lot of geology that I don't want to delve into. But there are reasonable explanations for that kind of thing.

[Snorri1234]

I know I did not cover everything. First because I have been working on this for 3 weeks and second, people probably will not read the entire thing anyway.

You have not covered everything because some things clearly contradict creationism.

1) Nothing in the real world contradicts creation. If a creator made everything, biology, geology physics would all still function as they are today. The only implication is that there would be a creator.

Lots of things contradict a creator.

2) By showing all of the areas where evolution either has no answer or it is based on assumptions that cannot be made creation has a good case because evolution does not. If DNA, information, mutations, geological age, etc can be shown not to agree with evolution but agree with creation, then creation has a good scientific case for being creditable.

Just because evolution cannot explain something does not mean creation then suddenly has a point. Creation never has a point because it's basically "God did it" repeated all the time.

[suggs]

This is a good novelette. Seriously, this thread is truly a monument to Man's imaginative capabilities.
Keep up the good work chaps-cant wait to find out what happens next.
Really hope some of those prophecies in the earlier episodes come back-or will Moses find true love?
"Creationism"-When You're A Neanderthal God Worshipping Moron, No one Cares If You Scream.

[heavycola]

Evolution explains how complexity can arise from simplicity. That is, as far as I can tell, what it does. Every creation myth, including the hebrew version, posits the existence of a being whose complexity far outstrips our own as having been there at the beginning of it all. How does a being so complex as to be omnipotent arise out of nothing when the complexity of a mere human brain requires almost the entire age of the universe to come into being?

[suggs]

Evolution explains how complexity can arise from simplicity. That is, as far as I can tell, what it does. Every creation myth, including the hebrew version, posits the existence of a being whose complexity far outstrips our own as having been there at the beginning of it all. How does a being so complex as to be omnipotent arise out of nothing when the complexity of a mere human brain requires almost the entire age of the universe to come into being?

Answer: "he" doesn't, 'cos he don't exist. And human brains are a relatively recent development-the universe had been around a fair old while before we turned up.
Hope that answers your query.

[Chris7He]

Bavarian Raven wrote:
Quote:
No, I only refer to this with the scientific sense, I still believe fully in God, I may not have seen him, but I've seen and read things of him that I fully believe.


so if none of your five senses tell u its real...and u still believe? that goes against the very nature of survival itself... u have eyes to see...u have s nose to smell... u have senses to tell you what is real and not real...

though one sense can decieve you u have many so u can comprehend what is real and what is a trick...

Who came up with the 5 senses? Scientists, whether they were there already or not, scientists tell you whether it is a sense or not, they skipped an important one though, faith is a sense.

is faith a sense??? I can smell a rose...i can see the rose...i can touch the rose...i can even taste it (yuck)...but if i don't see the rose i am holding i should have blind faith it is still there...???

touch, sense, taste, hearing, sight...we didn't need scientists to tell us we have these...we have always known...it has nothing to do with faith...

If someone tells you there is a rose, but you can't see or feel it. Do you still believe it is there? If so, then that is faith.

if He is all powerful, why did he let things like this happen? when He could have easily stopped it with a bullet flying in a slightly different direction during the 1st world war... a simple gust of wind...

critics will say it was a test. But what type of parent wants 6 million of their kids to be executed??? or why didn't he stop the even worse killings that occured in Russia and China??? doesn't seem all powerful to me...

I'm getting tired of answering this, humans were given free will. What we do has consequences, we have to accept those consequences. If God intervened in all major things, then we would learn nothing from it. We would just continue to attempt to do it. Instead since we had two major wars that millions died in, the world is much more cautious about war. The A-bomb, after witnessing what it does, the world is much more cautious with nucleur weapons.

We learn from our mistakes, would you rather your parents step in everytime you want to do something and tell you what to do or decide for yourself and deal with what happens after.

To send people to hell for not believing in God just because they live in a poor region where Christianity is not present or because they simply don't believe and don't return God's love is PETTY, CHILDISH, IMMATURE, and even EVIL.

To send people to hell for ETERNITY is also EVIL since eternal punishment cannot be earned in any possible way (you cannot kill an infinite amount of people). This means that God is imperfect and fallible. A perfect God would be able to prevent evil while allowing free will.

[Bavarian Raven]

To send people to hell for ETERNITY is also EVIL since eternal punishment cannot be earned in any possible way (you cannot kill an infinite amount of people). This means that God is imperfect and fallible. A perfect God would be able to prevent evil while allowing free will.

i agree...because someone does not know about your "creator" is enough for them to be sent to a eternity of fire and punishment... doesn't sound "all loving" and "all forgiving" to me...

[Carebian Knight]

Evolution explains how complexity can arise from simplicity. That is, as far as I can tell, what it does. Every creation myth, including the hebrew version, posits the existence of a being whose complexity far outstrips our own as having been there at the beginning of it all. How does a being so complex as to be omnipotent arise out of nothing when the complexity of a mere human brain requires almost the entire age of the universe to come into being?

Your only looking at it from the evolution angle. If evolution is true as you think, then yes God cannot be because he couldn't have been there from the beginning. But looking at it from the Creationism angle, God existed right away, humans didn't evolve but were created fully developed. Looking at both angles, both make sense in themselves. Other things may disprove either of them, but in themselves both make sense.

Chris: Do you agree with the death penalty in the case that someone killed a human being?

Snorri: What's with all the "that has nothing to do with evolution?" This thread isn't called evolution, it's called Creationism vs. Evolution, things about creationism have just as much right to be here. You missed the entire point of the parts pertaining to creationism, they were trying to show you how looking from the creationism angle, everything is in place, while from the evolution side there are holes.

Question: How is it that animals can't speak or do more "intelligent" things like that?

If we all evolved from basically the same thing, why are humans they only ones that can talk and build structures like we do? It doesn't make sense that we get all these traits while other animals have none of them.

[unriggable]

Your only looking at it from the evolution angle. If evolution is true as you think, then yes God cannot be because he couldn't have been there from the beginning. But looking at it from the Creationism angle, God existed right away, humans didn't evolve but were created fully developed. Looking at both angles, both make sense in themselves. Other things may disprove either of them, but in themselves both make sense.

The only problem.

[Carebian Knight]

To send people to hell for ETERNITY is also EVIL since eternal punishment cannot be earned in any possible way (you cannot kill an infinite amount of people). This means that God is imperfect and fallible. A perfect God would be able to prevent evil while allowing free will.

i agree...because someone does not know about your "creator" is enough for them to be sent to a eternity of fire and punishment... doesn't sound "all loving" and "all forgiving" to me...

You guys are talking about things you don't understand. God is all loving and all forgiving, however he can only forgive you if you choose to be forgiven. You wouldn't want to let killers, rapists and other criminals live with you. You probably wouldn't even let them live with you if they repented, you would no doubt judge them instead by their past. God looks past what you have done in the past, if you ask for his forgiveness, you will receive it. Everyone has the chance to hear about God, as for children who die before they can be exposed to God, they are brought into heaven because they also do not realize that they are sinning.

Also, the main thing that sends you to hell, is rejecting God, which is what many of you are doing now.

[got tonkaed]

You guys are talking about things you don't understand. God is all loving and all forgiving, however he can only forgive you if you choose to be forgiven.

These sentences contradict, If he is all forgiving, the next sentence cannot have the words he can only...if

[unriggable]

Also, the main thing that sends you to hell, is rejecting God, which is what many of you are doing now.

You're right. It doesn't matter if you beat your wife or steal from the poor or lie to get a good job, if you accept sky daddy you will be worthy. What a shitty system. You really believe that shit in the bible? You don't think that in Ezekiel when God said Tyre would fall, it would (26:7)? Because it didn't. There. Wrong. That is a failed prophecy, a false promise. What stops the rest of it from being that way?

[Bavarian Raven]

what your saying is that i can do whatever i want...rob a bank, rape a friend, murder six million people in several years but then ask for forgiveness and be forgiven??? how is that fair compared to a friendly man who doesn't believe in god but lives hapily at peace with everyone, helping everyone, doing charity work, helping the homeless, donating to charity...but this second man is still going to go to hell while the first wouldn't? something is wrong here...

[WidowMakers]

WOW some of the stuff over these last pages is really getting out of the realm that I wanted to talk about. Please settle down.

Sorry I have not posted sooner. I was away all weekend for Thanksgiving and I am in the process of reading the last 7 pages. I will hopefully have something by tomorrow night.

Thanks again for all who have read what i wrote (at least some of it).

WM

[Carebian Knight]

what your saying is that i can do whatever i want...rob a bank, rape a friend, murder six million people in several years but then ask for forgiveness and be forgiven??? how is that fair compared to a friendly man who doesn't believe in god but lives hapily at peace with everyone, helping everyone, doing charity work, helping the homeless, donating to charity...but this second man is still going to go to hell while the first wouldn't? something is wrong here...

In a sense yes, but not like what your thinking. If the man who robs the bank etc., truly repents and accepts God, he will be accepted as a follower of Christ. You can't just do all that, then say forgive me God. You have to mean it. You have to realize that what you did is wrong and repent. The man who does good works does not necessarily accept God, good works will not get you into heaven. Only accepting Christ will. If you don't understand that, then it's your problem and I truly feel sorry for you.

[Frigidus]

what your saying is that i can do whatever i want...rob a bank, rape a friend, murder six million people in several years but then ask for forgiveness and be forgiven??? how is that fair compared to a friendly man who doesn't believe in god but lives hapily at peace with everyone, helping everyone, doing charity work, helping the homeless, donating to charity...but this second man is still going to go to hell while the first wouldn't? something is wrong here...

In a sense yes, but not like what your thinking. If the man who robs the bank etc., truly repents and accepts God, he will be accepted as a follower of Christ. You can't just do all that, then say forgive me God. You have to mean it. You have to realize that what you did is wrong and repent. The man who does good works does not necessarily accept God, good works will not get you into heaven. Only accepting Christ will. If you don't understand that, then it's your problem and I truly feel sorry for you.

Man, free will certainly seems to hold us hostage. Seems to me that we have about as much free will as you do when elections roll around in a dictatorship. Sure, there are multiple options, but things sure don't go well for you if you don't choose the "right" one. Well, I guess I'll be seeing several of my fellow forum dwellers in hell.

[Bavarian Raven]

Carebian Knight wrote:
Bavarian Raven wrote:
what your saying is that i can do whatever i want...rob a bank, rape a friend, murder six million people in several years but then ask for forgiveness and be forgiven??? how is that fair compared to a friendly man who doesn't believe in god but lives hapily at peace with everyone, helping everyone, doing charity work, helping the homeless, donating to charity...but this second man is still going to go to hell while the first wouldn't? something is wrong here...


In a sense yes, but not like what your thinking. If the man who robs the bank etc., truly repents and accepts God, he will be accepted as a follower of Christ. You can't just do all that, then say forgive me God. You have to mean it. You have to realize that what you did is wrong and repent. The man who does good works does not necessarily accept God, good works will not get you into heaven. Only accepting Christ will. If you don't understand that, then it's your problem and I truly feel sorry for you.

so adding onto what i and u said, lets say for example person A was raised in a loving family that were atheists (sp) and that thought train was implanted in their mind at an early age. Then lets say at eighty after living a long nice life of helping people and the such he wants to become religous...

...so he goes down to the local Lutheran or Roman catholic or what not church and joins. He could pray every weekend, go to church every sunday and the such...yet there would always be a shred of doubt in his mind...and because of that shred of doubt he could never fully believe 100% with all of his heart... so then despite his "good" intentions is he going to hell???


ok then lets say person B lives a nice long full happy life of helping people and everything else nice but for some reason (isolation) he has no knowledge of "god". He was a nice lovely person who helped his neighbor and the such...is he too condemned to hell???


finally if the "creator" is omnipresent why do we have to go to church to worship him???


(sorry to be getting off topic but this needs to be "cleared" up once and for all)

[Neoteny]

WOW some of the stuff over these last pages is really getting out of the realm that I wanted to talk about. Please settle down.

Sorry I have not posted sooner. I was away all weekend for Thanksgiving and I am in the process of reading the last 7 pages. I will hopefully have something by tomorrow night.

Thanks again for all who have read what i wrote (at least some of it).

WM

Hey! I did my part!