One question for Christians

[Godscreated]

If the historians had given us proof of Christ then the scriptures would be wrong, faith is the way to salvation, then the road to knowledge of who God is.

Interesting...you are now claiming that the lack of historical documentation actually supports the bible?

What do you call faith... oh, that's right you define faith as proof.hock:

[Something completely different]

What do you call faith... oh, that's right you define faith as proof.hock:

Where does he do that?

[Godscreated]

I agree, however when someone continually runs down what is being said without evidence shows ignorance, and ignorance breeds one's unwillingness to learn.

Well, you know, as the hallowed saying goes: that which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. If you want us to start supplying evidence (though we already do, but hey) then you'll need to provide some to support your initial claims. The irony here runs deep.

You have never supplied any scriptural evidence period, so I assume the same applies to you. So on the other hand I do provide scriptural proof and you need to do the same to dismiss what I say.

I submit to you that you can not recognize sensible statements, so stop ridiculing until you can.

Sensible statements about magical men in the sky, and genocide that isn't genocide, stuff like that?

I have never made a statement about a magical man and I've given evidence through scripture that what you call genocide is in reality justice. You do not even understand what genocide is.

When you can show me that you can breed a dog to be something other than a dog I'll believe in evolution. No one has ever demonstrated that one species can become another, like atheist say only seeing is believing. no atheist can bring proof there's none.

Oh man, I swear; ever since coming here I end up posting the same few links every few weeks. It's like you guys never learn.

I submit that you find some links that have viable evidence and dump the trash you have been posting.

First of all, a little biology lesson; evolution would not permit a dog becoming something other than a dog. The nonexistence of this isn't an argument against evolution; if we did see a dog breeding something other than a dog, that would break evolutionary theory entirely. You're ass-backwards from the first objection.

So then I'm assuming from what you said that a species can not produce another species, so how does evolution magically come up with other species.

Now, what does evolution actually propose? Well, a gradual change; dogs becoming slightly different dogs due to genetic diversity, generation by generation, until eventually... a new species. Incidentally, you probably could have done better than picking dogs, because dogs are selectively bred, evolved wolves. And different dog breeds? That's proof of evolution. That's legit all evolution proposes.

You know this is what I referred to above, you're just being dishonest with such answers as above. A wolf is a dog, what did you think a wolf was a donkey. That proves nothing the wolf is still a dog and can breed with other dogs meaning same species. Your explanation is preposterous.

Meanwhile: Here's a list of creatures transitioning from one species to another. Here's some silver foxes that have been selectively bred into a new kind of fox. Here's an explanation of ring species, a live action example of the genetic drift that prompts evolution. And here is a list of the evolutionary process in observable, demonstrable action.

Now, see how I provided evidence there? The same evidence you accused us all of not providing in your post? And notice how you didn't extend the same courtesy with regards to your objections to evolution, even to the extent that you don't even know what evolution is?

Really puts it into perspective, doesn't it?

You've not proven or demonstrated anything, you have a bunch of fossils and no living species. You do not even have a complete fossil they are extremely rare, so everything else is filled in from presupposed ideas of scientists you've never meet and their work has been approved by scientist that practice the same thing. Evolution has be redefined so many times how could anyone know what is meant by the word evolution. It changes every time the need arises to evade and hide the truth, simple really. There is currently, nor has there ever been one species changing into another. When Christian scientist and other scientist challenged evolution and evolutionary scientist could not defend their position, we saw micro evolution and macro evolution pop up. To this day not one single bit of evidence has been shown to support macro evolution and micro evolution has not been shown to produce a single new species, except for those who believe that a domesticated dog and wolf are two separate species.

---

What do you call faith... oh, that's right you define faith as proof.hock:

Where does he do that?

All of you do every day, that's how you think.

[Foxaèr]

What do you call faith... oh, that's right you define faith as proof. :Shock:

All of you do every day, that's how you think.

You do understand that the definition of faith is the veritable lack of proof, right?

[YahwehIsTheWay]

In the bible, rape is more of a breach of ettiquette than a crime. I think there's a fine involved, and then you get to keep your victim, like some kind of carnival prize. Now, why would your god put that in his inerrant word?

It depends on who still owned the girl. After all, the Holey Babble makes it clear that she is someone's property from cradle to grave.

Now, if she were unmarried and un-betrothed to anyone, she was still the property of her father who was keeping her as a virgin to be married off to someone. If he played his cards right, he could get seven years of free labor in exchange for her. But needless to say, she still had to be a virgin or she would lose her sale value. In fact, goods spoiled in that fashion might be killed at the husband's say-so.

So if a man rapes an un-betrothed virgin girl, he's spoiled the goods that her father was hoping to get seven years of free labor for. A fine seems an appropriate punishment for damaging the man's goods in that fashion and destroying the sale value. Also, in the spirit of "you broke it, you bought it", he has to marry her. After all, who else is going to marry a non-virgin girl and what else is she good for?

On the other hand, if the girl is betrothed or married to another, the rapist is put to death for violating the property of another man. After marriage or engagement, she is the property of her husband/fiance. However, she is spared only if she is out in the country where no one could have heard her scream.

As an aside, I can only assume that the same rule would apply in space for the same reason.

Anyway, if she lives in an area where someone could have heard her, both are put to death. The assumption is that she asked for it or was a willing participant unless there is evidence to the contrary.

So, as you can see, it really depends on who she belonged to.

Glory! Praise the sweet name of Jay-zus.

[Ryantology]

You wouldn't believe it if many historians had written about Christ, you would have called them... so and so and said they wrote 2000 yrs. ago what do they know. If you believe then you would have to give up yourself and you seem to be unwilling to do so for Christ.

I'm not one of those people who tries to argue whether Jesus really walked the earth, mostly because him existing is only the first step in proving that he was the son of your god and that he died for our sins and all that nonsense.

If the historians had given us proof of Christ then the scriptures would be wrong, faith is the way to salvation, then the road to knowledge of who God is.

So, the only way you can actually believe the Christ story is to not have any valid reason to believe in the Christ story?

[Polaris]

Because of the need to get rid of the old ways of repentance from the OT while pleasing the Jews who were still very much wrapped up in those rituals.

[LostLocke]

You have never supplied any scriptural evidence period, so I assume the same applies to you. So on the other hand I do provide scriptural proof and you need to do the same to dismiss what I say.

Why would anyone ever use a source they don't believe is true as evidence of anything?

[Godscreated]

What do you call faith... oh, that's right you define faith as proof. :Shock:

All of you do every day, that's how you think.

You do understand that the definition of faith is the veritable lack of proof, right?

I've never said I had a problem with that.

---

You have never supplied any scriptural evidence period, so I assume the same applies to you. So on the other hand I do provide scriptural proof and you need to do the same to dismiss what I say.

Why would anyone ever use a source they don't believe is true as evidence of anything?

Same way I feel about evolution.

---

If the historians had given us proof of Christ then the scriptures would be wrong, faith is the way to salvation, then the road to knowledge of who God is.

So, the only way you can actually believe the Christ story is to not have any valid reason to believe in the Christ story?

What you stated has nothing to do with faith.

[Esquilax]

You have never supplied any scriptural evidence period, so I assume the same applies to you. So on the other hand I do provide scriptural proof and you need to do the same to dismiss what I say.

Why would I give the scriptures any credence as a source of information? As an atheist, and as a rational being? You haven't justified your belief that anything in them is true.

I have never made a statement about a magical man and I've given evidence through scripture that what you call genocide is in reality justice. You do not even understand what genocide is.

No, you use words like "divine," and "god's plan" as though that changes the nature of the conversation.

I submit that you find some links that have viable evidence and dump the trash you have been posting.

Keep this in mind, little fool...

So then I'm assuming from what you said that a species can not produce another species, so how does evolution magically come up with other species.

Evolution can produce additional species, it just takes more time; it's not going to be, say, a border collie giving birth to a leopard. Slight genetic variations add up over time, over a timescale of millions of years, until eventually, we're left with a creature that we'd have no choice but to classify as a different species. You know how you look different from your dad? And your kids would look even more different? And so on? It's like that; keep going for millions of generations, and eventually you'll have a person who looks nothing like your dad, but is still undeniably related to him.

You know this is what I referred to above, you're just being dishonest with such answers as above. A wolf is a dog, what did you think a wolf was a donkey. That proves nothing the wolf is still a dog and can breed with other dogs meaning same species. Your explanation is preposterous.

No, a wolf is a canine, but it is not a dog. More than that, as I already explained to you, of course it would be able to breed with genetically similar organisms, how else would it survive?

But let's look at this: you agree that we have multiple breeds of dog, right? Great Danes and Chihuahuas and all kinds in between? And that all of those dogs are, at root, domesticated wolves? All that variation was bred into dogs over millions of years, and that is evolution at work. The species split off, branched from the initial wolf population into large dogs, and small dogs, with such differences that you'd have to be an idiot to declare them all the same.

That's all evolution proposes; changes over time. Starkly different animals, built from a common ancestor.

You've not proven or demonstrated anything, you have a bunch of fossils and no living species.

Did you even read the links I sent you? I think not, because if you did, you would have seen that only the first of the four I posted was of fossils. The rest- that's seventy five percent of the total- was of living, observable examples of evolution. Animals that are actually alive, still evolving, and that you could actually go and see in their natural habitats, if you wanted.

It's interesting how willing you are to brush off any information we give you, but then you accuse us of not being willing to learn. You could at least have done me the common courtesy of opening my links, but I guess it was easier to simply lie about it, wasn't it?

You do not even have a complete fossil they are extremely rare, so everything else is filled in from presupposed ideas of scientists you've never meet and their work has been approved by scientist that practice the same thing. Evolution has be redefined so many times how could anyone know what is meant by the word evolution. It changes every time the need arises to evade and hide the truth, simple really. There is currently, nor has there ever been one species changing into another.

Funny, because I thought the last link- which it's becoming increasingly apparent that you ignored- had eight examples of living creatures on there.

When Christian scientist and other scientist challenged evolution and evolutionary scientist could not defend their position, we saw micro evolution and macro evolution pop up.

Actually, those terms were originally coined to reference the level of evolutionary change, with macroevolution used to describe evolutionary changes in separate gene pools. Most biologists today don't bother to use those terms at all, instead opting to talk about changes in allele frequencies without mentioning the level of change. The term itself was coined in 1927, though, so your timing is entirely out anyway.

Incidentally, since you're so sure that "christian scientists" are challenging evolution so successfully (without mentioning who is challenging or where, interestingly) what do you think of 2005's Kitzmiller vs Dover court case, where evolution won the day and the prominent christian scientist who argued against it was laughed out of court, having been lying on the stand?

To this day not one single bit of evidence has been shown to support macro evolution and micro evolution has not been shown to produce a single new species, except for those who believe that a domesticated dog and wolf are two separate species.

They're just two scales of the same process, seriously. We can prove that microevolution occurs- insofar as I even want to use that term- via simple observation, and macroevolution is just those changes seen over millions of years. Let me ask you: if you take one step, and then another, and then you keep taking steps, will you not eventually walk a mile? That's pretty analogous to macroevolution; your view of this is that small changes can occur, but that those small changes will never accumulate into bigger ones. You're just being absurd.

Also: I gave a link to a concept called ring species, that I wish you'd have read before wasting my time, which is a live action example of this kind of genetic drift, to the point of creating two species of animal that cannot interbreed, despite having started as the same animal.

And again, I note with interest: no evidence from the godschild, but plenty from me...