As I go on reading the post and comments of people and their beliefs towards Jesus and God. I notice one flaw within all their arguments. This one FLAW is the fact that they assume how God should be. Saying things such as "if Jesus was really God he would do, or say, ". Well just to direct the answer to these arguments you are not Jesus nor God (although one in the same). So understand that we do not know the reason behind why God does something the way he does. But just like Peter did not want Jesus to go die on the cross because he did not understand the reasons behind the way Jesus acted. We need to understand that the way God did something was for his purpose and for that purpose not to be altered and accentuated into "oneself" only beliefs.

If anything we should come into agreement that there is something greater out there. That man did not evolve from a "theory" of evolution. If you have a comment to say about your personal "beliefs" toward a religion, state them. But do this not to gibe, but rather to inform oneself of the way they believe in. For if we understand that Jesus came not to condemn, not to argue, but rather to do the will of the father, and bring the laws to light. Then we would know that as "men" and "women" of God our purpose is to spread the truth, not argue it. This is why Jesus at times did not reveal his deity through words, because he recognized it would be a waist of breath, they would come against him anyways. The people at the time had hearts of stones, even through the miracles people came against him. Also just to state the unseen obvious the bible does say Jesus is God.

Though I must say, if anyone does have a question toward the belief of Christianity (only under what the bible strictly says) then message me; post it up. I do not want to argue, I do not want to condemn, I want to save.

I completely agree. The egocentric nature of man is tell the story in FIRST person. The only view people really have in mind is their own. Not to say that I'm not interested in what people think, but when it comes to asking, 'Why did God do this?' and, 'Why did it happen this way?', we have to understand that God doesn't have the same opinions we do. His view is divine and ours is carnal. To overcome hard-heartedness (stubborness), we have to understand that God sees things in a different light than we do. For example, I know I, myself, wouldn't love a person that I didn't like. God sees EVERYONE as His own creation and loves each and every person the same. Jesus died for the person who criticized Him and the man who had peace with Him just the same, like the two people who were crucified beside Him. I know I wouldn't have taken a nail for either of them, but that's where we must understand that Christ is Christ and I am me. Big difference!

'For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him would not perish, but have everlasting life.' ~John 3:16

APKevin:


If anything we should come into agreement that there is something greater out there. That man did not evolve from a "theory" of evolution.

Evolution does not preclude a belief in a supernatural deity, and yes man did evolve and is still evolving. Other than that, I agree with a lot of what you posted.

Unfortunately the thought of evolution does not justify itself. They still lack any evidential knowledge of making such as statement such as "Evolution". The only evidence they said was linking us to a prehistoric man was the Neanderthal. Even this was proven to be false, when the bone of a Neanderthal was excavated next to a Homo-Sapiens dating around the same time period. So where is the proof and evidence?

Let’s say that all of this was proven to be true though. That there might be an earlier period of man. Well if evolution is the passing of genetic DNA that causes change within oneself structure that is birthed in the new off spring from the inability to cope with the environment, then there should be more species of man. From what I hear people don’t believe evolution within man is still taking place anymore, since man has the ability to change environment. So from an evolutionist stand point you’re technically wrong, and from a Christian stand point you are still incorrect.

Lets even play with the word evolution a little more. If I was to continue to pass genetic data to my offspring in order to make a positive change within there lives from the negative ability to cope that I go through. There would be certain humans carrying genes that others lack. This would cause not one species of Homo-Sapiens, but rather many forms of humans. So evolution does not justify itself on the principles it stands on.

With all due respect, I don't think you know much about evolution.

APKevin:

Unfortunately the thought of evolution does not justify itself. They still lack any evidential knowledge of making such as statement such as "Evolution". The only evidence they said was linking us to a prehistoric man was the Neanderthal. Even this was proven to be false, when the bone of a Neanderthal was excavated next to a Homo-Sapiens dating around the same time period. So where is the proof and evidence?

There really is no lack of evidence, and neanderthals have never been hailed as human ancestors, and it is generally accepted that neanderthals were contemporaries of homo sapiens. For the evidences of evolution, I'm currently writing something like a little primer, that details some of evidences (I should have finished it about a week ago, but I'm a procastinator). One of the best evidences that I've written about is "endogenous retroviral insertions". They are in a sense genetic markers that can be used to ascertain parentage and genetic relations. Humans share endogenous retroviruses with our ape cousins, and that shows we share a common ancestor.

Let’s say that all of this was proven to be true though. That there might be an earlier period of man. Well if evolution is the passing of genetic DNA that causes change within oneself structure that is birthed in the new off spring from the inability to cope with the environment, then there should be more species of man. From what I hear people don’t believe evolution within man is still taking place anymore, since man has the ability to change environment. So from an evolutionist stand point you’re technically wrong, and from a Christian stand point you are still incorrect.

I didn't understand the beginning of the statement, and the end to tell the truth; but to say that evolution is no longer occuring, especially in man is patently wrong. An article reporting the findings of a research to determine if humans are still evolving: http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20060308/sc_space/hundredsofhumangenesstillevolving

Lets even play with the word evolution a little more. If I was to continue to pass genetic data to my offspring in order to make a positive change within there lives from the negative ability to cope that I go through. There would be certain humans carrying genes that others lack. This would cause not one species of Homo-Sapiens, but rather many forms of humans. So evolution does not justify itself on the principles it stands on.

I don't see how the fact certain humans having mutations that others lack, is a problem for evolution. You seem to be under the misconception that it is individuals that evolve. In truth, evolution is the "change in allele frequency of a population, "

@Kag
I don't see how the fact certain humans having mutations that others lack, is a problem for evolution. You seem to be under the misconception that it is individuals that evolve. In truth, evolution is the "change in allele frequency of a population, "

What is to determine these population affects? Yes the environment affects us in many different ways, but there is more to it then that. There is the mental environment on which we live in. This also can have a positive or negative affect in our lives; one that can cause a change within what we become. So a general population cannot be in complete correlation with one another. That makes it seem like there is some force that ties us together that our genetics are coherent with one another.

If I'm in a position where certain variables from the environment do not affect me as much (due to adaptation) as others, then the affects within my life would be completely afar from people around me. Not everyone is in the same life style or environment. Is there evolution that causes one to be immune to the negative affects of drugs (although I know your body becomes altered and tries to cope with the problem)? If so people have been drunkards for thousands of years (this is just recorded evidence, I’m sure this extends beyond what is recorded). Dont you think that things like this would cause a possibly change? That the body would be able to cope with the affects of alcohol. Now you may say what does alcohol have to do with evolution. This consumption is just like any other negative affect that can be inflected onto your body (Ex: getting cut).

REASONS WHY EVOLUTION does not make sense. First, if evolution is a continual growth in development that oneself becomes more optimum then the previous. Then how come I may over come a bacteria in my life, and that genetic code is not saved in order for the cells within the body to recognize the attack for my next offspring. We have been in disease for such an extended period of time, yet something like having the chicken pox and overcoming it can not be passed on. Now if you meditate on the issue, what causes your body to recognize a change that it would record erroneous affects so that the next offspring can uphold that optimum level of survival. If this where so then every negative aspect present we would continue to record and evolve. So we may ask ourselves, what requires change, what is suitable enough to make a change? You may say anything that causes degeneration within the body. Well, death causes degeneration, smoking, alcohol, the list can continue (these factors are also in the millions).

This shows us that a multitude of people does not affect what the outcome of the new evolved creature is going to be, the only possible variable needed is a continual negative event that would recur in that line of species. Evolution is only the belief for those who do not accept a divinity, or are not satisfied by one.

Unfortunately, we have to speak to each other in these terms. Rather, I would like to speak to you in a friendlier manner. Like why do I believe in God, or why do you believe in evolution. I really dont think what I may say is going to cause you to change your mind (although I hope), and im sure you believe the same thing toward me. Even though we are on opposite ends of the rope I would like to understand why you choose this path, and would love to discuss the principles you live for. I'm not just trying to evangelize I just want to converse, and get to know ya betta .

Quick responses, because I have to hop catch atrain soon, and I doubt if I'll be back on here for a couple of days.

APKevin:

@Kag
I don't see how the fact certain humans having mutations that others lack, is a problem for evolution. You seem to be under the misconception that it is individuals that evolve. In truth, evolution is the "change in allele frequency of a population, "

What is to determine these population affects? Yes the environment affects us in many different ways, but there is more to it then that. There is the mental environment on which we live in. This also can have a positive or negative affect in our lives; one that can cause a change within what we become. So a general population cannot be in complete correlation with one another. That makes it seem like there is some force that ties us together that our genetics are coherent with one another.

Actually the general pouplation is still in correlation because we all share a common human ancestor, and there has been no way for the evolution into another species to have occured. For human speciation to happen, you'll need a population of humans to become completely isolated from the general population, and then over a long time they could possibly speciate.

If I'm in a position where certain variables from the environment do not affect me as much (due to adaptation) as others, then the affects within my life would be completely afar from people around me.

It wouldn't be that far off though. Take for example, lactose intolerance. Many are born without the enzyme that digests lactates, although they have lost a component, on a genetic level they are still not that different from others.

Not everyone is in the same life style or environment. Is there evolution that causes one to be immune to the negative affects of drugs (although I know your body becomes altered and tries to cope with the problem)?
If so people have been drunkards for thousands of years (this is just recorded evidence, I’m sure this extends beyond what is recorded). Dont you think that things like this would cause a possibly change? That the body would be able to cope with the affects of alcohol. Now you may say what does alcohol have to do with evolution. This consumption is just like any other negative affect that can be inflected onto your body (Ex: getting cut).

I don't think alcohol "immunisation" is something that can be passed down from generation to generation, because for one thing evolution is not, in practically every case, a conscious choice, and for another alcohol is not something that affects genes. However, there are certain indigeneous cultures that boast of excellent boozers that can hold their liquor *cough* Irish *cough*

REASONS WHY EVOLUTION does not make sense. First, if evolution is a continual growth in development that oneself becomes more optimum then the previous.

That's not what evolution is. Evolution is not like ladder where evrything keeps evolving to a better state. Evolution can be better or worse, from a human (and environmental) perspective.

Then how come I may over come a bacteria in my life, and that genetic code is not saved in order for the cells within the body to recognize the attack for my next offspring.

See http://www.betterhealthchannel.com.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Immune_system?OpenDocument, for how the immune system works.

We have been in disease for such an extended period of time, yet something like having the chicken pox and overcoming it can not be passed on. Now if you meditate on the issue, what causes your body to recognize a change that it would record erroneous affects so that the next offspring can uphold that optimum level of survival. If this where so then every negative aspect present we would continue to record and evolve. So we may ask ourselves, what requires change, what is suitable enough to make a change? You may say anything that causes degeneration within the body. Well, death causes degeneration, smoking, alcohol, the list can continue (these factors are also in the millions).

No, no and no! Genetic mutations and selection, are the main causes of a species developing immunity to a bacterial/viral stain etc. By the way, overcomin chicken pox is not always the end of it, the same virus can also cause shingles.

This shows us that a multitude of people does not affect what the outcome of the new evolved creature is going to be, the only possible variable needed is a continual negative event that would recur in that line of species.

What?

Evolution is only the belief for those who do not accept a divinity, or are not satisfied by one.

That's clearly not true, as the majority of people who accept evolution are in fact theists, and many of whom are christians.

Unfortunately, we have to speak to each other in these terms. Rather, I would like to speak to you in a friendlier manner. Like why do I believe in God, or why do you believe in evolution.

Why do you believe in God? By the way, evolution and christianity are not mutually exclusive. I accept evolution (I don't believe in it) based on my readings, and my understanding of it.

I really don't think what I may say is going to cause you to change your mind (although I hope), and im sure you believe the same thing toward me.

I'm not that dogmatic about it to be honest.

Even though we are on opposite ends of the rope I would like to understand why you choose this path, and would love to discuss the principles you live for. I'm not just trying to evangelize I just want to converse, and get to know ya betta .

Cool, that would be fun.

KAG:
Why do you believe in God?

I know this question wasn't directed toward me, but I chose to answer it anyhow. Hope you don't mind.

Why do I believe in God?

I believe in God because of logic.
For every building there is a builder. For every painting there is a painter. For every creation there is a Creator. I couldn't have been here by chance. Someone had to have come before. And neither chemicals nor atoms would know how to give me a conscience or thoughts. Neither would understand what I understand. Natural selection couldn't have formed me. Nature has no mind. Nature only exists because there is Someone higher who does have a mind.

I believe in God because of instinct.
I always knew God existed. Something within me always said it. Even if I wanted to, I couldn't deny that fact.

I believe in God because of feeling.
I have FELT God before. It's unexplainable. But I knew it was Him the whole time. It's like getting butterflies in your stomach, except all over your body. But it's serenity; it's peace. Not sickness.

I believe in God because of faith.
God has given me a measure of faith. I have the ability to capture a measure of His love, His grace, His personality.

I believe in God because of experience.
I asked God to change to my life and to make me a new person. He turned my life around. He showed me a new hope. He gave me a reason to live. He gave me a purpose and I found it in Him. I believe in Him because I've actually encountered God.

I believe in God because of testimony.
The story of my grandfather's life is almost unbelievable. Long story short, my grandfather was, by people's standards, one of the world's worst people. He was a drunkard, a fighter, a killer, a cheater, you name it. The man went to church ONCE, and God turned his life around. He's a pastor now. Not any amount of drugs, hypnotism, pain, evolution, anything could have changed him. Just God. I believe in God because he saved my friend from committing suicide. He saved my family from falling apart. And more than that, He saved them all from hell. There are SO many other testimonies from other people but if I tried to fit just a portion here, I would, blow up? Is that the way to word it? Ah well.

There are so many other reasons why I believe in God. Honestly, I don't even like to word it that way. God is so real that I shouldn't have to have a REASON to believe in Him. Just like I shouldn't have to have a reason to believe that my mother exists. Or that the computer that I'm typing on exists. I just know. I believe in God, because He believes in me.  What more can I say?

~Jordan

4Jesus4Eva:

I know this question wasn't directed toward me, but I chose to answer it anyhow. Hope you don't mind.

Not at all.

I believe in God because of logic.
For every building there is a builder. For every painting there is a painter. For every creation there is a Creator. I couldn't have been here by chance. Someone had to have come before.

Does that apply to GOD (to differentiate between christian God, and other Gods [thanks christians for hijacking the word])? If you posit that the Univers and all in it needed a creator, then surely GOD must need a creator too, and his creator a creator, ad infinitum.

And neither chemicals nor atoms would know how to give me a conscience or thoughts. Neither would understand what I understand.

Why not? Human beings and every other organism on Earth, are made up primarily of chemicals. All it takes for a human to think and infact believe he has a soul, is the firing of neurons in the brain, all the work of chemicals. The same is applicable for other intelligent animals, for example dolphins.

Natural selection couldn't have formed me. Nature has no mind. Nature only exists because there is Someone higher who does have a mind.

You are right, natural selection couldn't have formed you alone, coupled with mutations on the other hand, You say nature exists because of a higher mind, I have yet to see any evidence for that.

I believe in God because of instinct.
I always knew God existed. Something within me always said it. Even if I wanted to, I couldn't deny that fact.

That's an interesting point. I have never felt the existence of God, and truth be told, I don't think I've ever really believed in the existence of God, let alon GOD. My siblings on the other hand, have no trouble believing in GOD, sometimes in spite of themselves. Perhaps humans are generally wired for belief in the supernatural, and atheists (and their ilk) are the mutants .

I believe in God because of feeling.
I have FELT God before. It's unexplainable. But I knew it was Him the whole time. It's like getting butterflies in your stomach, except all over your body. But it's serenity; it's peace. Not sickness.

Would it matter that I have had feelings like that, and believe me when I say this, it wasn't GOD?

I believe in God because of faith.
God has given me a measure of faith. I have the ability to capture a measure of His love, His grace, His personality.

I believe in God because of experience.
I asked God to change to my life and to make me a new person. He turned my life around. He showed me a new hope. He gave me a reason to live. He gave me a purpose and I found it in Him. I believe in Him because I've actually encountered God.

Okay.

I believe in God because of testimony.
The story of my grandfather's life is almost unbelievable. Long story short, my grandfather was, by people's standards, one of the world's worst people. He was a drunkard, a fighter, a killer, a cheater, you name it. The man went to church ONCE, and God turned his life around. He's a pastor now. Not any amount of drugs, hypnotism, pain, evolution, anything could have changed him. Just God. I believe in God because he saved my friend from committing suicide. He saved my family from falling apart. And more than that, He saved them all from hell. There are SO many other testimonies from other people but if I tried to fit just a portion here, I would, blow up? Is that the way to word it? Ah well.

Just to point out, evolution is neither theological nor is it philosophical, so evolution can't, nor should it be expected to, cahnge people.

There are so many other reasons why I believe in God. Honestly, I don't even like to word it that way. God is so real that I shouldn't have to have a REASON to believe in Him. Just like I shouldn't have to have a reason to believe that my mother exists. Or that the computer that I'm typing on exists. I just know. I believe in God, because He believes in me. What more can I say?

~Jordan

I have to say though interesting, I don't think it would be remiss of me to state that your reasons for belief in your God can, and I'm sure they are, be applied by any believer in another God. Also, does it matter that the reasons for your belief are anecdotal?

Unfortunately enough we can always make a positive into a negative. I'm directing that toward the constant remarks toward every line of text we as believers right. The irony around what I said though is that you even made an atheistic belief of mind a false or negative statement. If oneself does not believe in a God then he/she will detest everything that one says. it is funny though that not matter how many people can surround a person and give a life experience or even show the existence of God to be true the person can never believe it. Reason, because he/she does not want to. This example is even showed to us by people who are in the "church" and say that they believe in God. although a belief in atheism maybe justified to ones only personal choice I ask you what is the proof or evidence in that belief. They have yet been able to find a link to a prehistoric man, for the supposed evidence they find is proven to be false.



P.S. I'll be waiting for the comment to comment response of my statement

APKevin:

Unfortunately enough we can always make a positive into a negative. I'm directing that toward the constant remarks toward every line of text we as believers right.

It's the only way I can address posts that have a lot going on in them, it in no way turns a positive into a neagtive

The irony around what I said though is that you even made an atheistic belief of mind a false or negative statement. If oneself does not believe in a God then he/she will detest everything that one says.

I don't understand what you mean here, are you suggesting I detest what I say, because I disagree with what you think all atheists believe? Also, could you quote the part of my response you mean.

it is funny though that not matter how many people can surround a person and give a life experience or even show the existence of God to be true the person can never believe it. Reason, because he/she does not want to.

I think you are oversimplifying a lack of belief, especially a lack of belief in a God. I can only speak for myself, but I honestly don't believe I lack belief because "I don't want to believe", it's more of a case of "I see no reason to believe, my insticts give me inclination to believe, and I'll be lying to myself If I pretended to believe." On a related note, when it comes to not believing in the Gods of other religions, do you lack belief in them simply because you don't want to believe?

This example is even showed to us by people who are in the "church" and say that they believe in God. although a belief in atheism maybe justified to ones only personal choice I ask you what is the proof or evidence in that belief.

You can't believe in atheism, in very much the same way you can't believ in theism. Also atheism is a lack of belief, the burden of proof is not on the atheist, but on the theist to prove or present hard evidence for their claim(s).

They have yet been able to find a link to a prehistoric man, for the supposed evidence they find is proven to be false.

Could you explain what you mean, what evidence was proven false?

P.S. I'll be waiting for the comment to comment response of my statement

Once again, it's the only way I can respond to a post with a lot going in it, especially if I don't want to get lost. I hope it doesn't bother you too much, I could try to change that format, but no promises.

APKevin:

As I go on reading the post and comments of people and their beliefs towards Jesus and God. I notice one flaw within all their arguments. This one FLAW is the fact that they assume how God should be. Saying things such as "if Jesus was really God he would do, or say, ". Well just to direct the answer to these arguments you are not Jesus nor God (although one in the same). So understand that we do not know the reason behind why God does something the way he does. But just like Peter did not want Jesus to go die on the cross because he did not understand the reasons behind the way Jesus acted. We need to understand that the way God did something was for his purpose and for that purpose not to be altered and accentuated into "oneself" only beliefs.

If anything we should come into agreement that there is something greater out there. That man did not evolve from a "theory" of evolution. If you have a comment to say about your personal "beliefs" toward a religion, state them. But do this not to gibe, but rather to inform oneself of the way they believe in. For if we understand that Jesus came not to condemn, not to argue, but rather to do the will of the father, and bring the laws to light. Then we would know that as "men" and "women" of God our purpose is to spread the truth, not argue it. This is why Jesus at times did not reveal his deity through words, because he recognized it would be a waist of breath, they would come against him anyways. The people at the time had hearts of stones, even through the miracles people came against him. Also just to state the unseen obvious the bible does say Jesus is God.

Though I must say, if anyone does have a question toward the belief of Christianity (only under what the bible strictly says) then message me; post it up. I do not want to argue, I do not want to condemn, I want to save.

Funny how you make use of the FLAW and attempt to tell us what Jesus is like.

lol I apologize APKevin for the structure of my response 

KAG:

Does that apply to GOD (to differentiate between christian God, and other Gods [thanks christians for hijacking the word])? If you posit that the Univers and all in it needed a creator, then surely GOD must need a creator too, and his creator a creator, ad infinitum.

First of all, no need to start complicating my response. I said, "I believe in God because <insert multiple reasons here> " Personally I found that an appropriate response to the question you posed: "Why do you believe in God?" But to clarify, I mean that I believe in one single God, the God that is described in the Bible. He's Who I believe. And, your conclusion is inaccurate. You see it that because God exists He must have a creator. But that's wrong. God is the sole Creator of everything. He is the beginning and the end. God has simply always existed and He always will. He needed no one to create Him nor was there anyone TO create Him. It's something that's truly hard (impossible, really) to capture and I wouldn't suggest trying to think about it too long, you may hurt yourself (jk). I really don't know how to put it but I'll try to the best of my ability: it's like a circle or a line. Neither has a beginning or end as far as discrete geometry is concerned but they still go on forever. If you can accept that, you can accept that God is eternal by His own nature. And sadly, when you try to put a man with a carnal nature to ponder upon eternal things and supernatural things, it's a trying picture to capture. But that's what this thread is about isn't it?

KAG:

Why not? Human beings and every other organism on Earth, are made up primarily of chemicals. All it takes for a human to think and infact believe he has a soul, is the firing of neurons in the brain, all the work of chemicals. The same is applicable for other intelligent animals, for example dolphins.

Good observation, however, inaccurate once again. Sure THINKING is done chemically by the firing of neurons across synapses and all that but just because that can be done doesn't mean we don't truly have souls. People do! PHYSICALLY, we're made up chemicals and all that stuff, but we're also composed of body, spirit, and soul as well. Think about this: sure, your mind is what cause you to think, but is it really your BRAIN (your physical brain, the thing sitting inside your head) that cause you to think or is it your mind (the invisible thoughts that just come up)? It's like an imaginary thing that sits above your head that causes you to think and envision and imagine, not the physical brain. Think about this too: what you are made up of is just a mixture of blood, tissue, cells, water, organs, and some other stuff. Now, how is it that all that stuff can cause a feeling or emotional pain or even an imaginary thought? It really doesn't add up and it doesn't make sense if you think about it. How can a composition of all those things cause me to fall in love or to cry when my friend rejects me or any of that? I'm not saying that those things aren't important, and that soul and spirit and physical things are independent of one another--simply that God did literally breathe a soul into every one of us and that soul and spirit is what causes us to have a conscience and emotions.

KAG:

You are right, natural selection couldn't have formed you alone, coupled with mutations on the other hand, You say nature exists because of a higher mind, I have yet to see any evidence for that.

I'm sorry, I really don't know too much about mutations and the intricacies therein. I do know though that mutations are no reason that a species should jump from one to another, no matter how many years go by. I know that mutation is an occurrence in the DNA or RNA that causes an offspring to differ from the parent in a certain trait. But because it is defined as the recombining of genetic code, there is no reason that it should bring about new creations. That is, there is no reason, by mutation, that I can come from an ape or anything like that. If I were to recombine the letters in the English alphabet, surely I'd produce some interesting and new words, but never would I start to produce Chinese words. Also, if you want evidence of a higher mind, consider these: How did matter organize itself so perfectly that it would form creation as stable as is existent? And How did hair, nails, and skin and all that stuff evolve or become created? And in the bodily systems, which evolved first, (how and how long did it go on without the others) the digestive system, the nervous system, the endochrine system, etc. Or what came first, reproduction or the drive to reproduce and how did one go on without the other? These are really rhetorical. But it just shows there is now way these things could have been formed without Someone there to form them and in His own specific and higher thinking order. Even Darwin submitted ever so pompously (to me at least), "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Now, you say that along with mutation it can all be possible, but can you even begin to think that CHANCES of that? Hand-in-hand with Darwin's quote, George Gallup stated, "I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone. The chances that all the functions of the individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity." (I'm normally not too fond of quotes but I found these particularly meaningful here because Darwin somewhat pioneered the theory of evolution) See, there had to have been a Higher Mind dreaming us up and creating us with His own two hands. It couldn't have just happened on its own.

KAG:

Would it matter that I have had feelings like that, and believe me when I say this, it wasn't GOD?

I see what you're saying but I know you don't get what I mean. You'd have to have experienced the same thing I did in order to know what I'm talking about. But that's okay. But I see where you're coming from, I didn't really expect it to convince you or anything so it's reasonable to say that if you were to say that it wouldn't convince me either. I was just stating another reason I believe.

KAG:

Just to point out, evolution is neither theological nor is it philosophical, so evolution can't, nor should it be expected to, cahnge people.

I know. I was just making an example of how God changed my grandpa and nothing else did. It was just rhetoric, sorry.

KAG:

I have to say though interesting, I don't think it would be remiss of me to state that your reasons for belief in your God can, and I'm sure they are, be applied by any believer in another God. Also, does it matter that the reasons for your belief are anecdotal?

I understand what you mean. And you're right. I'm sure that people can use my same reasons to believe in their own god and such. But I was just adressing the question why I believe in God the Father--not why I believe in Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit (once again, They are all One and the Same) or the Bible. You see, I didn't just decide to 'jump into Christianity' as many think I would. I have reasons for what I believe and what I know is true and reasons why others should believe, too. And I'm glad you asked about the significance of personal experience for my belief. Because, yes, it is highly important. My testimony, I know is just one of the things that NO ONE would be able to take away from me. My personal experience is my own, and it is confirmation. How could I believe in God if He says He can change my life and make me new but then my life is never really truly changed? That is how I know: His Word and the fulfillment of It tells me that He is true. And if I were to have just personal experience, then I would have no one to believe in and I would have no one to give me that word. You can't have one without the other. Also, faith is experimental, much like car brakes. You never know it till you try and it works. However, my God, unlike car brakes, always works. 

~Jordan

KAG:

Could you explain what you mean, what evidence was proven false?

You may be familiar with the evolution progression chart (you know, the one where it shows the stages of monkey-development into modern man). The Nebraska Man was scientifically built up from one tooth, and that tooth was later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig. The Piltdown was built up from an whole jawbone and a few pieces of skull, discovered by an amateur geologist in 1912. In 1953, scientists did in depth research on the pieces and radiocarbon tests showed that the pieces of skull belonged to a 600 yr-old woman and the jawbone was that of a 300 yr-old orangutan from the East Indies. The Peking Man is the next step up in the chain but as he is estimated to be 500,000 years old, all evidence of his existence has disappeared. The Neanderthal Man, whose skeleton was discovered in France over 50 yrs ago, when being examined by the Int'l Congress of Zoology, was found to be that of an old man who suffered from arthritis. I don't really know about New Guinea Man but since 1970 this species has been spotted just north of Australia (hahahah lol jk). Cro-Magnon Man was considered one of the best and stable fossils of the evolutionary chain. He was in equal physique and brain capacity as modern man. But then scientists began to wonder what was the difference. And just another piece in this little puzzle regarding the development of humans: Platelets in the blood are what cause the clotting process to occur when a person is wounded. It has been found that platelets work in a complex 12-step process in order to cause blood to coagulate. If just a single thing went wrong in this process the whole thing would fall apart. And since evolution by definition is progression, how could man have survived without the entire process being present all at one time. Which parts came first knowing that just one SINGLE little nick or scratch could cause this person to bleed to death? There's some more stuff about evolution that was proven wrong, I'm sure. Afterall, it was just a really good theory/idea that seemed to make sense for a while but then most of the evidence that was its foundation ended up false or misunderstood or fraudulent. But that's okay, because there is still truth in this world: Christ.

~Jordan

4Jesus4Eva:

lol I apologize APKevin for the structure of my response

First of all, no need to start complicating my response. I said, "I believe in God because <insert multiple reasons here> " Personally I found that an appropriate response to the question you posed: "Why do you believe in God?" But to clarify, I mean that I believe in one single God, the God that is described in the Bible. He's Who I believe. And, your conclusion is inaccurate. You see it that because God exists He must have a creator. But that's wrong. God is the sole Creator of everything. He is the beginning and the end. God has simply always existed and He always will. He needed no one to create Him nor was there anyone TO create Him. It's something that's truly hard (impossible, really) to capture and I wouldn't suggest trying to think about it too long, you may hurt yourself (jk). I really don't know how to put it but I'll try to the best of my ability: it's like a circle or a line. Neither has a beginning or end as far as discrete geometry is concerned but they still go on forever. If you can accept that, you can accept that God is eternal by His own nature. And sadly, when you try to put a man with a carnal nature to ponder upon eternal things and supernatural things, it's a trying picture to capture. But that's what this thread is about isn't it?

Okay, I understand what you mean.

Good observation, however, inaccurate once again. Sure THINKING is done chemically by the firing of neurons across synapses and all that but just because that can be done doesn't mean we don't truly have souls. People do! PHYSICALLY, we're made up chemicals and all that stuff, but we're also composed of body, spirit, and soul as well. Think about this: sure, your mind is what cause you to think, but is it really your BRAIN (your physical brain, the thing sitting inside your head) that cause you to think or is it your mind (the invisible thoughts that just come up)?

It really is the brain. I haven't seen any evidence for souls etc.

It's like an imaginary thing that sits above your head that causes you to think and envision and imagine, not the physical brain. Think about this too: what you are made up of is just a mixture of blood, tissue, cells, water, organs, and some other stuff. Now, how is it that all that stuff can cause a feeling or emotional pain or even an imaginary thought? It really doesn't add up and it doesn't make sense if you think about it. How can a composition of all those things cause me to fall in love or to cry when my friend rejects me or any of that? I'm not saying that those things aren't important, and that soul and spirit and physical things are independent of one another--simply that God did literally breathe a soul into every one of us and that soul and spirit is what causes us to have a conscience and emotions.

I honestly believe emotions etc, are because of the brain, as opposed to a "God breathed soul". That belief is further boistered by the fact other animals have feelings, go through pain, fall in love etc.

I'm sorry, I really don't know too much about mutations and the intricacies therein. I do know though that mutations are no reason that a species should jump from one to another, no matter how many years go by.

Mutations alone won't do that, but mutations and selection can cause, and have caused speciation.

I know that mutation is an occurrence in the DNA or RNA that causes an offspring to differ from the parent in a certain trait. But because it is defined as the recombining of genetic code, there is no reason that it should bring about new creations.
That is, there is no reason, by mutation, that I can come from an ape or anything like that. If I were to recombine the letters in the English alphabet, surely I'd produce some interesting and new words, but never would I start to produce Chinese words.

the evidence says though that speciation occurs, and it definitely shows that we share a common ancestor with other apes. Also, the evolution of languages (in essence words) is very much like biological evolution, for example, Latin over time evolved into olde English, archaic French, and some other languages, Olde English and archaic French have also given rise due to selection, to Queens English, american English, Black English Variety, and a vast number of "Englishes" (to quote my flat mate), in countries like India, Nigeria, etc. note also, that the original languages have become practically extinct too.

Also, if you want evidence of a higher mind, consider these: How did matter organize itself so perfectly that it would form creation as stable as is existent?

Is matter organised, or is it the human mind that desires to see order that assumes matter is orderly?

And How did hair, nails, and skin and all that stuff evolve or become created? And in the bodily systems, which evolved first, (how and how long did it go on without the others) the digestive system, the nervous system, the endochrine system, etc. Or what came first, reproduction or the drive to reproduce and how did one go on without the other? These are really rhetorical.

Too many questions, and many of those questions require indepth answers with at least some research. You may very well believe those were rhetorical, but they do have answers. For example the evolution of hair, which by the way is not exclusive to humans. I'd imagine our distant ancestor acquired it's fur in much the same way some other organisms have acquired feathers, a mutation occured resulting in the outer covering, it was either naturally or sexually selected, and became prevalent. humans or the human like nacestor started to shed it's fur, and one theory holds that somewhere in our evolutionary history we were aquatic, that theory is supported -amongst other things- by the way our hair is distributed. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/evolution.html#lost3.

By the way, all those systems you listed above, did not appear as "complex" as they are now. They all started off in simplified forms, and in some cases may even have served other functions.

But it just shows there is now way these things could have been formed without Someone there to form them and in His own specific and higher thinking order. Even Darwin submitted ever so pompously (to me at least), "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

That quote is a famous quote mine often used by anti-evolution proponents. I'd be very cross with the (most likely) lying creationist weasels that made you fall for that "lying for Jesus" quotemine. Carryung on from where the quote mine stops "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory." (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part8.html)

I have an online text of the "Origin of Species", if you are interested in reading it. Also, Darwin gives an idea of how the eye could have formed.

Now, you say that along with mutation it can all be possible, but can you even begin to think that CHANCES of that?

1

Hand-in-hand with Darwin's quote, George Gallup stated, "I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone. The chances that all the functions of the individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity." (I'm normally not too fond of quotes but I found these particularly meaningful here because Darwin somewhat pioneered the theory of evolution) See, there had to have been a Higher Mind dreaming us up and creating us with His own two hands. It couldn't have just happened on its own.

I'd have to see how Gallup calculated his odds, what factors he used etc. I'd also like to know if he factored in the seemingly badly designed parts of the human body, like the having of the important reproductive organ in the same place as the waste disposal unit, or the crazy position of the recurrent laryngeal nerve.

I see what you're saying but I know you don't get what I mean. You'd have to have experienced the same thing I did in order to know what I'm talking about. But that's okay. But I see where you're coming from, I didn't really expect it to convince you or anything so it's reasonable to say that if you were to say that it wouldn't convince me either. I was just stating another reason I believe.

Okay.

I know. I was just making an example of how God changed my grandpa and nothing else did. It was just rhetoric, sorry.

Okay.

I understand what you mean. And you're right. I'm sure that people can use my same reasons to believe in their own god and such. But I was just adressing the question why I believe in God the Father--not why I believe in Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit (once again, They are all One and the Same) or the Bible. You see, I didn't just decide to 'jump into Christianity' as many think I would. I have reasons for what I believe and what I know is true and reasons why others should believe, too. And I'm glad you asked about the significance of personal experience for my belief. Because, yes, it is highly important. My testimony, I know is just one of the things that NO ONE would be able to take away from me. My personal experience is my own, and it is confirmation. How could I believe in God if He says He can change my life and make me new but then my life is never really truly changed? That is how I know: His Word and the fulfillment of It tells me that He is true. And if I were to have just personal experience, then I would have no one to believe in and I would have no one to give me that word. You can't have one without the other. Also, faith is experimental, much like car brakes. You never know it till you try and it works. However, my God, unlike car brakes, always works.

Cool, thanks for responding and telling me why you believe, it was an interesting read too.

4Jesus4Eva:

You may be familiar with the evolution progression chart (you know, the one where it shows the stages of monkey-development into modern man).

The chart would be wrong then.

The Nebraska Man was scientifically built up from one tooth, and that tooth was later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig.

Nebraska Man was a mistake that was accepted by about two scientists, and an over-eager editor.

The Piltdown was built up from an whole jawbone and a few pieces of skull, discovered by an amateur geologist in 1912. In 1953, scientists did in depth research on the pieces and radiocarbon tests showed that the pieces of skull belonged to a 600 yr-old woman and the jawbone was that of a 300 yr-old orangutan from the East Indies.

Piltdown was an hoax that many believe was perpetuated on scientists, however you would hard pressed to find another hoax that has slipped through since then. One more thing, Piltdown man unsurprisingly didn't fit the data, and was an anomally that stuck out severely in the common descent theory.

The Peking Man is the next step up in the chain but as he is estimated to be 500,000 years old, all evidence of his existence has disappeared.

What do you mean by "all evidence, has disappeared?

The Neanderthal Man, whose skeleton was discovered in France over 50 years ago, when being examined by the Int'l Congress of Zoology, was found to be that of an old man who suffered from arthritis.

Yes, if old men also have heavy brow ridges, a long low skulls, and live in caves together for long periods, and happen to not seem like old men.

I don't really know about New Guinea Man but since 1970 this species has been spotted just north of Australia (hahahah lol jk).

Cro-Magnon Man was considered one of the best and stable fossils of the evolutionary chain. He was in equal physique and brain capacity as modern man. But then scientists began to wonder what was the difference.

Nobody (to my knowledge) ever claimed Cro-Magnon was different from modern man, well except from evolution dissidents that is. Cro-Magnons were the European bound humans from Africa.

And just another piece in this little puzzle regarding the development of humans: Platelets in the blood are what cause the clotting process to occur when a person is wounded. It has been found that platelets work in a complex 12-step process in order to cause blood to coagulate. If just a single thing went wrong in this process the whole thing would fall apart. And since evolution by definition is progression, how could man have survived without the entire process being present all at one time. Which parts came first knowing that just one SINGLE little nick or scratch could cause this person to bleed to death?

The way the evolution of blood clotting in humans most likely occured, has been tackled ever since it was introduced by Behe. One of the scientists that tackled it (adequately) is none other than the brilliant theistic evolutionist Ken Miller, see here: http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html. I haven't read it all, but I do remember watching a "lecture" where he addresses it, so I'll assume it's more or less the same thing.

There's some more stuff about evolution that was proven wrong, I'm sure. Afterall, it was just a really good theory/idea that seemed to make sense for a while but then most of the evidence that was its foundation ended up false or misunderstood or fraudulent. But that's okay, because there is still truth in this world: Christ.

Surely you must mean creationism.

4Jesus4Eva:

You may be familiar with the evolution progression chart (you know, the one where it shows the stages of monkey-development into modern man). The Nebraska Man was scientifically built up from one tooth, and that tooth was later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig. The Piltdown was built up from an whole jawbone and a few pieces of skull, discovered by an amateur geologist in 1912. In 1953, scientists did in depth research on the pieces and radiocarbon tests showed that the pieces of skull belonged to a 600 yr-old woman and the jawbone was that of a 300 yr-old orangutan from the East Indies. The Peking Man is the next step up in the chain but as he is estimated to be 500,000 years old, all evidence of his existence has disappeared. The Neanderthal Man, whose skeleton was discovered in France over 50 years ago, when being examined by the Int'l Congress of Zoology, was found to be that of an old man who suffered from arthritis. I don't really know about New Guinea Man but since 1970 this species has been spotted just north of Australia (hahahah lol jk). Cro-Magnon Man was considered one of the best and stable fossils of the evolutionary chain. He was in equal physique and brain capacity as modern man. But then scientists began to wonder what was the difference. And just another piece in this little puzzle regarding the development of humans: Platelets in the blood are what cause the clotting process to occur when a person is wounded. It has been found that platelets work in a complex 12-step process in order to cause blood to coagulate. If just a single thing went wrong in this process the whole thing would fall apart. And since evolution by definition is progression, how could man have survived without the entire process being present all at one time. Which parts came first knowing that just one SINGLE little nick or scratch could cause this person to bleed to death? There's some more stuff about evolution that was proven wrong, I'm sure. Afterall, it was just a really good theory/idea that seemed to make sense for a while but then most of the evidence that was its foundation ended up false or misunderstood or fraudulent. But that's okay, because there is still truth in this world: Christ.

~Jordan

I suppose Cro-Magnon never had old men in their population right? All of them died young? BTW. . define old. . .and young. . .

Assuming even that your claim is true, how is that proof of anything other than a mistake? So. . .lets see, i'm digging in my backyard and I find a bone which I claim is a dinosaur bone. Later, scientists discover its the bone of an old man. BOOM, I just disproved the existence of dinosaurs. . If that is all your proof. . . you cannot be expected to be taken seriously.

idiot:

I suppose Cro-Magnon never had old men in their population right? All of them died young? BTW. . define old. . .and young. . .

Assuming even that your claim is true, how is that proof of anything other than a mistake? So. . .lets see, i'm digging in my backyard and I find a bone which I claim is a dinosaur bone. Later, scientists discover its the bone of an old man. BOOM, I just disproved the existence of dinosaurs. . If that is all your proof. . . you cannot be expected to be taken seriously.

What I suspect may have happened is, a paleontologist studied some of the Neandertals remains, noticed and published that some of the fossils included elderly neandertals, who also happened to have athritis. However, in true creationist style, a creationist most likely misread/misunderstood/intentional misrepresented what was said, and unfortunately many anti-evolution proponents are misled into repeating it.

i certainly agree with the thread title.