interesting how one who claims to be an agnostic athiest is trying to prove the bible wrong. maybe the agnostic part should be removed but anyways you want to a christian who doesn't change doctrine or avoids answers you got one. i believe the bible is 100% correct and 70% of it has already been proven to be accurate and more as they try to disprove it. though i believe some parts are medephorical that talks about some spiritual aspects the creation story is entirely literal. and you may laugh at this but i believe the earth to be around 6 to 7 thousand years old. i believe the theory of evelution originated from an observation of animal adaptation and exagurating it to extreme lengths as to say all living organisms have a common ancestor and developed differently to create the variety of species we have today with no evidence to support it simply to have an origin of life theory that doesn't involve a diety. evelution was created (not to darwins intention) to replace religion and rule it out simply because it's "stupid" with no further argument needed to consider it as a scientific possibility. that's not what science should be it's about finding the truth not trying to prove something that is thought to be truth. science changes all the time but the bible has remained the same and i challenge anyone to prove to me that the bible is flawed using evidence you find. saying "this person said evelution is right and the thought of creation is evidence is stupid" doesn't count as evidence. if you don't understand what you're saying, don't say it. my argument is that even though most say the idea of a God sound's rediculous, the idea that puzzels pieced them selves together to form the universe is just as rediculous if not more. thinking that you can throw a bunch of crap together a billion times and eventually get what you want is deffinition insanity ("doing the same thing over and over expecting different results"). throwing puzzel pieces at the wall will never put it together and just as you see a building and say "that can't just happen" same applies to organisms. it's more likely to get a building from throwing crap together anyways than it is to get a lifeform. i challenge someone to nock my foundation and prove me wrong. unlike other christians i don't abandon my foundation because of scientific theories that haven't been proven.

---

frodo, when christianity was first developed as a religion hundreds of years later they decided to take books about god and put them into a single book and call it the bible. in these include important jewish texts (since that's the origin of christianity) and books of the new testimate which include the the works of the apostiles. all those texts describe jesus as our savior and divine and a part of God himself as he and God are one. any who claim to be christian but not believe in christ have deviated themselves from the the faith to the point that they are no longer christian just as christians deviated from juddism to the point that they are no longer jews. christ is a fundamental part of christianity and it's what makes it christianity and you cannot take christ out of it. since i am a christian, i would know better than these athiests (and btw i don't consider jehovah witness' or mormans christians either and as much as the catholics changed i hardly consider them christians).

(December 15, 2011 at 6:37 am)chipan Wrote: interesting how one who claims to be an agnostic athiest is trying to prove the bible wrong. maybe the agnostic part should be removed but anyways you want to a christian who doesn't change doctrine or avoids answers you got one.

You don't have to be an atheist to think the bible is the biggest pile of lies around... You do not seem to understand what an agnostic atheist is.

Quote:i believe the bible is 100% correct and 70% of it has already been proven to be accurate and more as they try to disprove it.

Then you, sir, are a fool.

Haven't demonstrated that a god exists yet. Until you archive that, you've got nothing to show.

Which 70% ? The dotted "i"s and crossed "t"s ? Think the editors handled that 70%. If the bible were so reliable I doubt you'd be here dashing off whining posts about science.

(December 15, 2011 at 11:02 am)frankiej Wrote: [quote='chipan' pid='215559' dateline='1323945457']
interesting how one who claims to be an agnostic athiest is trying to prove the bible wrong. maybe the agnostic part should be removed but anyways you want to a christian who doesn't change doctrine or avoids answers you got one.


You don't have to be an atheist to think the bible is the biggest pile of lies around... You do not seem to understand what an agnostic atheist is.



agnostic means they believe nothing can be proven or disproven when it comes to religion but since you already don't believe me here's a quote from dictionary.com
a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic: Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality.


i believe the bible is 100% correct and 70% of it has already been proven to be accurate and more as they try to disprove it.

Then you, sir, are a fool.

you know they say that when you have a debate with someone and they call you a name you've won the debate and if so i've won every one on this site, but i'm not in it to win i'm in it to learn so it's quite boring when all you have for me is insults

Good fail.

Only a fool could believe that he's won a debate when the opposition calls him on his foolishness.

Let me attempt to put this diplomatically without directly insulting you. The arguments you have presented so far are factually deficient, and in fact are strawman representations of cosmology and evolution. It's quite clear that your knowledge of these subjects is sorely lacking.

It's not even worthy of debate.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that evolution is a lie. Do you have any affirmitive evidence that god created us, or is that just the default position you fall back on while trying to prove others wrong?

These religionists keep forgetting that even if evolution is false, there's still a long way to go until they prove their god(s).

that's a good point, but the fact of the matter is, science is what's proving what is in the physical world. since god is outside that, there is no way to scientifically prove that it doesn't exist, all you can do is look at the design of how living things work and they're so complicated we don't fully understand them. the big question is, how can things so complicated just occure in nature with no guidence from a designer when we can't even reproduce them with guidence? it's not just unlikely, it's insane. and if in fact these things couldn't just happen in nature and they had to built by someone the question then is who? well it would have to be something outside this universe sense everything in the universe has a beginning and an end which refers us to the theory of an inteligent designer outside our universe. that's how it can be proven right and try to refute this point without personal insults and i will agnolage all valid points.