How did the universe begin???

[FreemanHL2]

Now ppl are always posting threads in an attempt to prove/disapprove creationism. This thread is all about the holes in evolutionism.

Firstly the entire evolutionary path is supposed to follow a simple rule, survival of the fittest. Things apparently evolve in order to survive, keeping only what is necessary, and adapting to new conditions. Now let's take a look at some things that disagree with this theory, I'd like to call them "unnecessary evolutions."

For a start why do we feel compassion and love? It is indeed evolutionary unnecessary for our brains to evolve entire ?sections? dedicated to love, compassion and even emotion.

Would it not make more sense for evolution to use INSTINCT to base our decisions on rather than choice? For instance we often DIE for the ppl we love, even disabled people, who are technically not fit to survive by evolutionary standards. If evolution is true the human brain should have evolved into an organ of INSTINCT, choosing the path of survival, over an emotional decision.

Why is it that we play computer games??? Why is it that we watch sport??? We enjoy recreation... We have chosen to base our entire civilization on entertainment, which is opposite to the priorities of evolution.

You may say that these are our choices, but in the end if evolution truly existed it would not have let us evolve into a state were we enjoy such minor "distractions" from what is important.

Indeed how is evolution determined? Our DNA is instructed on developing our own bodies, it does not think or have a larger scale of development in mind? If evolution is based solely on our environment (we adapt to our environments), then why does ANYTHING evolve when clearly it has already adapted. For instance why did we evolve from monkeys when clearly they are already perfectly adapted to their environment? Indeed why did the one celled organism evolve into a multi-cellular organism when it was quite adapt to its conditions? If there is some kind of ?rule? in our DNA then tell me were it is? And how complex would this DNA need to be in order to make DECISIONS, such as evolving into multicellular creatures?

Did the one celled organism DECIDE to evolve into a multicellular organism??? No, not only did it not have a brain but nothing can DECIDE to evolve, it is obviously DNA. So why would the DNA evolve? Did the DNA WANT to become multicellular???

Whatever the case, how can DNA decide anything? And if it is predetermined instructions in DNA then who made those instructions??? It certainly wasn?t based on survival, because we have evolved into beings with so many unnecessary functions, contradicting everything we based evolution on???

In conclusion I don?t really see how evolution is any more likely than creationism, although if you sat down long enough, you?d end up deciding that creationism is more logical, even if you prefer evolutionism.

 

[Tyrial]

Originally posted by: FreemanHL2
Now ppl are always posting threads in an attempt to prove/disapprove creationism. This thread is all about the holes in evolutionism.

Firstly the entire evolutionary path is supposed to follow a simple rule, survival of the fittest. Things apparently evolve in order to survive, keeping only what is necessary, and adapting to new conditions. Now let's take a look at some things that disagree with this theory, I'd like to call them "unnecessary evolutions."

For a start why do we feel compassion and love? It is indeed evolutionary unnecessary for our brains to evolve entire ?sections? dedicated to love, compassion and even emotion.

Would it not make more sense for evolution to use INSTINCT to base our decisions on rather than choice? For instance we often DIE for the ppl we love, even disabled people, who are technically not fit to survive by evolutionary standards. If evolution is true the human brain should have evolved into an organ of INSTINCT, choosing the path of survival, over an emotional decision.

The current theory is the reason that we developed these emotions is for the species to survive, not just the individual. It is quite straight forward to think "The needs of the many outway the needs of the few". This ensures that the species will continue.

Why is it that we play computer games??? Why is it that we watch sport??? We enjoy recreation... We have chosen to base our entire civilization on entertainment, which is opposite to the priorities of evolution.

You may say that these are our choices, but in the end if evolution truly existed it would not have let us evolve into a state were we enjoy such minor "distractions" from what is important.

We do these things because we do enjoy them yes, but why do we enjoy them? Is it because at one time, when humans weren't the dominant species on the planet, we always had to be in top phyiscal and mental condition. And in order for keeping our body (and mind) active and healthy, we evovled to like and enjoy these activity's. There is also natural competitiveness, the need to constantly make ourselves better than all the others in our species to better the species and attract mates. This also ensures that we don't "slip" backwards in terms of evolution.

Indeed how is evolution determined? Our DNA is instructed on developing our own bodies, it does not think or have a larger scale of development in mind? If evolution is based solely on our environment (we adapt to our environments), then why does ANYTHING evolve when clearly it has already adapted.

It evloves because it has to. It evolves because of sudden changes to its environment and other variable factors. However not only sudden changes cause evolution, for example did you no that about every 10 years Australia moves another metre forward. And that the sun continues on its orbit of the centre of the galaxy, and that our galaxys itself move closer and closer to Andromeda, and that about every 1 billion years (I think it is 1 billion, might be 1 million though) we are the closest to other solar systems that can effect asteroid belts cause asteroids to go hurtling through space? My guess is no. Any way all these things can effect evolution in someway or another. My point is you won't suddenly wake up with another thumb like a bottle opener if you pull the caps off 1000's of bottles of beer and drink them the night before (or maybe you will, hell... I don't know what you do when your drunk ).

For instance why did we evolve from monkeys when clearly they are already perfectly adapted to their environment?

First and foremost, we did NOT evolve from monkeys. You just insulted every human on the planet by calling us all monkeys. We evolved from something closer to an ape or an orangutang (not either of these exact species but a distant relative of them). We evolved in order to survive to changes in our environment, however in order to believe this you must believe that things change. And judging from your post it appears you don't believe things change.

Indeed why did the one celled organism evolve into a multi-cellular organism when it was quite adapt to its conditions? If there is some kind of ?rule? in our DNA then tell me were it is? And how complex would this DNA need to be in order to make DECISIONS, such as evolving into multicellular creatures?

In order to survive to changes, I've said all this before. There is no decision it is something that the organism must do or die.

Did the one celled organism DECIDE to evolve into a multicellular organism??? No, not only did it not have a brain but nothing can DECIDE to evolve, it is obviously DNA. So why would the DNA evolve? Did the DNA WANT to become multicellular???

No one decides anything, we respond to external imputs. For example I bet after someone reads this they are going to go out and need to make a choice, they will make the choice they don't ussually make just to try and prove what I'm saying is wrong. However by doing that they will prove that I am right.

Whatever the case, how can DNA decide anything? And if it is predetermined instructions in DNA then who made those instructions??? It certainly wasn?t based on survival, because we have evolved into beings with so many unnecessary functions, contradicting everything we based evolution on???

Would you mind stating some of these "unnecessary functions"? And name one evolution that occured that you can't eventually trace back to survival? This trait/ability might not be used anymore but at one time it did help us to survive.

In conclusion I don?t really see how evolution is any more likely than creationism, although if you sat down long enough, you?d end up deciding that creationism is more logical, even if you prefer evolutionism.

WTF!!! Please explain to me how creationism is logical? There is no evidence at all, not even an agreement on who created us. And not to mention who created the person/thing that created us? That could just go on forever.

 

[FreemanHL2]

I doubt weather this changes anything, all we are debating is weather or not our evolutionary changes were nessessary. You say yes, i say no.

Anyway can i ask you a THEORETICAL question? What if armegedon came tommorow and proved there was a god??? what would you do??? Don't you think you should be a little more open just incase?

It's like saying to ppl in the 1700's, what if earth was swallowed by a giant sphere in outer space that distorts time and matter (a wormhole), they would laugh, saying you have no proof, largely because back then we didn't have proof. It's the same now, we currently have no physical evidence of god (and technology is not likely to help us find any either), but even you know the chances are more likely than winning a million dollars in a game show, due to the non-physical proof of god (history)?

Basically, what created the first organism?? a comet??? what created the comet??? what created space????

Simply put to get here something had to transverse time, it is only logical??? weather it is space or a rock or something, something had to have been there FOREVER in order to START things right? After all if nothing was there than were did it come from??? And even so space had to be there forever, even if it was empty??? right???

This is were it gets complex... if there was just a single atom transversing time than there would need to be 2 atoms to start a reaction like the big bang... but how did the atoms get there??? transversing time is very dificult to understand, no matter what you believe in (evolutionism, creationism, anything else) something had to transverse time!

It deosn't seem likely that our current universe could possibly exist from 2 single atoms??? What if you say there were atleast 20 different forms of atoms transversing time???? What are the chances they would collide in an infinite amount of space???

To me a god or DESIGNER seems just as LIKELY as any other theory??? We are sentient beings so why can't ther be other sentient beings??? or even a god???

 

[Tyrial]

Originally posted by: FreemanHL2
Anyway can i ask you a THEORETICAL question? What if armegedon came tommorow and proved there was a god??? what would you do??? Don't you think you should be a little more open just incase?

All I can say is that it would take more than armegedon to convince me there was a god. In actual fact we have a very good chance of all being wiped out, asteroids, nuclear war, biological war, the sun going supernova, a black hole coming along etc... okay maybe the last ones were a bit "out there". Even if God/god himself apeared in front of me it would take more than that to convince me. I would suspect aliens before I suspected any God/god.

It's like saying to ppl in the 1700's, what if earth was swallowed by a giant sphere in outer space that distorts time and matter (a wormhole), they would laugh, saying you have no proof, largely because back then we didn't have proof.

I think if you took back more than just your word they would believe you. For example take back an army battlion and an airforce wing as well as a space shuttle and space shuttle launch pad. Then see if they don't believe you.

but even you know the chances are more likely than winning a million dollars in a game show, due to the non-physical proof of god (history)?

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here but... I'd say the chances of winning a million dollars are more likley than there being a god.

Basically, what created the first organism??

There are many theorys on this do a search on google.

a comet??? what created the comet??? what created space????

Now these questions are harder to answer, however there are plenty of theorys on this too. Once again may I suggest google. However since I believe it is quiet clear that you are a creationist and possibly religous it is not much use telling you to look for stuff that questions your own beliefes.

Simply put to get here something had to transverse time, it is only logical???

That is not logical in the slightest. If for example an atom traversed time than the question still reamains where did the atom come from? Did it come from the future or the past? If it came from the future what orriginally happened? And where did the first atom come from? Now THIS is where it starts to get very confusing, because paradoxs come into play.

This is were it gets complex... if there was just a single atom transversing time than there would need to be 2 atoms to start a reaction like the big bang...

More than 2 atoms would be required to make a reaction like the Big Bang, even if it were an atom (aka Matter) and an anti-atom (aka Anti-Matter) it would still take more than 2.

but how did the atoms get there??? transversing time is very dificult to understand, no matter what you believe in (evolutionism, creationism, anything else) something had to transverse time!

Okay, this time thing is going nowhere but creating more paradoxs than I believe you realise.

It deosn't seem likely that our current universe could possibly exist from 2 single atoms??? What if you say there were atleast 20 different forms of atoms transversing time???? What are the chances they would collide in an infinite amount of space???

I would like to say here that if they had an infinte amount of space they would also have an infinte amount of time, since time hadn't really started yet.

To me a god or DESIGNER seems just as LIKELY as any other theory??? We are sentient beings so why can't ther be other sentient beings??? or even a god???

So let me get this straight you're a creationist, who believes in aliens and is possible religous? That makes no sense. Also I'm perefectly willing to admit that their are other sentient beings (aka Aliens), however that "They are among us" stuff is just wrong.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Hey now, I'm proud to be a primate. *flings feces at this thread*

However, I'd like to have a word with whichever of my ancestors decided to leave the banana-chomping jungle lifestyle for the 9-to-5 grind.

- M4H

 

[Peter]

Science: Sets up a theory. Invites everyone to try and poke holes in it. If someone manages to do so, improves or even disposes of the existing theory. Educates the general public.

Religion: Sets up a theory. Calls everyone who tries to poke a hole in it a "heretic". If someone manages to do so anyway, disposes of that person and whistles innocently. "Protects" the general public from "internal" knowledge.

Nuff said.

 

[Gibsons]

so much to choose from... I'll take this one bit

For instance why did we evolve from monkeys when clearly they are already perfectly adapted to their environment?

Tyrial already pointed out (correctly) that we didn't reallly evolve from monkeys, but I'll play along.

Monkeys are perfectly adapted? To what environment? Are you saying no monkey ever died of disease, or starvation or predation? No monkeyever competed for food or competed for sex? Does the perfectly evolved monkey have babies once per year or twice.. or once per decade? There's no such thing as being "perfectly adapted."

 

[mariosoft034]

This is a useless discussion. When religion becomes a factor no amount of proofs or theories will suffice, it is only a matter of faith. Do not try to convince each other in a teological discussion. There are thousands of religions in the modern world and no *winner* religion is going to persuade the others of their beliefs

 

[soccerballtux]

This is in no way a personal attack on you, I'm merely using your comments to ask questions of you and others like you.

Originally posted by: Tyrial

Originally posted by: FreemanHL2
Anyway can i ask you a THEORETICAL question? What if armegedon came tommorow and proved there was a god??? what would you do??? Don't you think you should be a little more open just incase?

All I can say is that it would take more than armegedon to convince me there was a god. In actual fact we have a very good chance of all being wiped out, asteroids, nuclear war, biological war, the sun going supernova, a black hole coming along etc... okay maybe the last ones were a bit "out there". Even if God/god himself apeared in front of me it would take more than that to convince me. I would suspect aliens before I suspected any God/god.

Giving your chain of reasoning in your statement just now, you indicate that you believe in evolution and the validity of reason. But why? How can time and chance, acting on matter, produce reason? If you saw a chemical reaction in the labratory, it would not occur to you to say that the reaction was either true or false. It just is. According to evolution, his Christian beliefs are just a complex chemical reaction within his head. So why do you think them to be false? And your beliefs are simply a chemical reaction too. So why do you think they are true?

It would take lots to convince you that there was a God. That means you interpret the things that go on in the world by your own pressupositions about it. Even evolutionists, who supposedly base all their ideas about the world we live in on science and reason, have religious beliefs, or pressuppositions as well. You do not want to accept the existence of God. Your pressupposition is that there is no God, and so you look for ways to prove that, and deny things the refute your belief. Yet the whole time, you and evolutionists borrow reason from theism to argue your case.

a comet??? what created the comet??? what created space????

Now these questions are harder to answer, however there are plenty of theorys on this too. Once again may I suggest google. However since I believe it is quiet clear that you are a creationist and possibly religous it is not much use telling you to look for stuff that questions your own beliefes.

Again....the exact same can be said for you too....because we all interpret the surrounding world by our own worldview, or pressupposition, as stated above, and you use reason to do it.

Basically, what created the first organism??

There are many theorys on this do a search on google.

According to science, if all there is is matter, and there is no metaphysical world, then everything is based on the laws cause and effect. The fact that we exist today [effect] proves there was cause. And this cause must have been an effect of another cause. And then there must have been a cause for that cause. And so on back to the beginnings of the universe. But what caused the first cause to begin the universe? There must have been something outside the laws of cause and effect to create the first cause. There must have been a self existent being. And the universe doesn't count because if the universe has always been around, then there must have been an infinite amount of time before our existence, and if that is the case, then we can't be here now; otherwise that amount of time wasn't infinite, but thats beside the point.

To me a god or DESIGNER seems just as LIKELY as any other theory??? We are sentient beings so why can't ther be other sentient beings??? or even a god???

So let me get this straight you're a creationist, who believes in aliens and is possible religous? That makes no sense. Also I'm perefectly willing to admit that their are other sentient beings (aka Aliens), however that "They are among us" stuff is just wrong.

But why is it wrong? What is wrong? If you are consistent with the theory of evolution, using reasoning, then once again, all that exists is merely a complex chain of events linked by cause and effect. That means that all feelings and choices are simply chemical processes going off in the brain. So where do you derive your morals? If you say "Morals are what is best for the majority", you are merely begging the question: That's just another way of saying "Is equals ought." What is "best" and who determines what is "best" for the majority? Is it whatever allows them to continue to exist the longest? But once again, why do you reason for existence, claiming it is "right" when all that you have to base that on is a chemical reaction of cause and effect?

I believe in God so that I may retain my reason. He does not depend on reason. Reason depends on Him. Reason flows out of His nature. For those who do not believe in God, the only consistent position is nihilism, yet a truly nihilistic lifestyle is impossible (you still expect your foot to move when you want it to, yet there is no "reason" for it to do so). Of course, if there is no God there is nothing wrong with being inconsistent. If all standards have collapsed, it hardly makes sense to keep the standard of consistency. After reason has departed, anything goes.

Before, you had a resason for rejecting God--or at least you thought you did. now you may continue to rebel, but you have been stripped of your weapons. The only thing standing between you (and everyone) and God is an unwillingness to have anything to do with him. You may claim that your unwillingness has nothing to do with it, that God simply doesn't exist, but what are your reasons for this belief? Evolutionism must rest on an unsupported presupposition, not on any claim to reason. In order to build it on the foundation of reason, you have to borrow from theism. But if you base it on this unsupported presupposition, then you have to admit that you have no reason to speak of God's existence, one way or another. And yet, in spite of this lack, you defy Him anyway. Why?

Of course I am asking for reasons here. I ask for them because I want you [and all others who are reading this, this whole thing is directed to all who take the "no God" standpoint] to know their position. I want people to say out loud that they have no reason to defy God, and that yet they defy Him anyway. Call it spiritual reality therapy.

For those that are willing to say it, I want you to ponder your sins. If you have no reasons for rebellion against God, then the source of that rebellion must be elsewhere. I suggest that you investigate the area of morality. Perhaps you don't wish to live the way God insists we live?

You see here I am presupposing that God exists. The Christian worldview is the only way to make sense of the world we live in.

Rom 1:18-23:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power, and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles."

Romans 8:1-8:
There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. To set the mind on flesh is death, but to set the mind of the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hotile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Romans 6:23:
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

John 3:16-17:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For Goid did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

PM me if you want....

 

[soccerballtux]

Oh yeah....and about the "Why not any other religion?"

Only Scripture (God's Word to mankind, the Bible) accounts for the unbeliever's hostility and failure of men to acknowledge the necessary truth of God's revelation; not to mention that only Scritpture provides the only escape from the effects of this hostility and failure (futility and damnation).
---->Bahnsen, "Always Ready"

 

[Sahakiel]

I'd just like to point out one thing:

Evolution as a theory does not state that beneficial traits are enhanced. Evolution simply states that any trait that prevents reproduction or leads directly to the death of offspring will result in that trait disappearing from the gene pool. It says nothing about other traits.

 

[Codewiz]

"Only Scripture (God's Word to mankind, the Bible) accounts for the unbeliever's hostility and failure of men to acknowledge the necessary truth of God's revelation; not to mention that only Scritpture provides the only escape from the effects of this hostility and failure (futility and damnation). "

And that right there shows your ignorance of other religions.

 

[soccerballtux]

So there are other religions that show man's problem of sin, the only way out (Jesus Christ's atonement), and give comlete fulfillment in having a personal relationship with this Creator?

such as....

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
So there are other religions that show man's problem of sin

Most religions (and all of the major ones) deal in some way or another with mankind's predilections for what might be called "evil" acts.

the only way out (Jesus Christ's atonement)

Why is that "the only way out"? I take it you don't find the teachings of, say, Buddhism (in a very small nutshell, that suffering is the result of being too bound to the material world, and that 'the way out' is letting go) to be acceptable in this regard?

and give comlete fulfillment in having a personal relationship with this Creator?

Many religions promise to bring you closer to God; whether or not any of them actually can is probably beyond the scope of the discussion here. "complete fulfillment" is a bit subjective, but many people seem happy with many non-Christian religions (or no religion whatsoever).

 

[Lynx516]

Well ignoring the ones that for the Chritian/Jewish branch. I will take Buddism as an example. It says "Suffering is life" (the sin part). That only be enlightenment will you transend this world (buddists beleive in reincarnatin) into a better place (your "only way out). and they dont have a creator they just accept that we are here.

(if you try to argue against their beleif that their is no creator please explain how god came into being?)

 

[Veramocor]

Edit: Probally doesn't belong in highly technical plus you can't win this argument. Comments removed.

 

[xSauronx]

i love this, its not at all highly technical, but since it isnt a tech support question it stays open. maybe it could at least get pushed to OT where the rest of these are started in the first place?

 

[KoolAidKid]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Hey now, I'm proud to be a primate. *flings feces at this thread*

However, I'd like to have a word with whichever of my ancestors decided to leave the banana-chomping jungle lifestyle for the 9-to-5 grind.

- M4H

Seconded.

 

[Geniere]

Religious discussions should not be in the Hi Tech forum. Pro or con replies are equally incorrect.

 

[FreemanHL2]

Actually we are discussing the "highly technical" subject of evolution transcending time.

People tend to think of time as being "physical" when it is merely our way of counting "moments." Time is not real, you cannot travel through time, because time has already passed, and it is just the name we give to passing moments. How do you suggest we travel back in time??? How can we relieve moments that have already passed??? Time is just our way of COUNTING moments and cannot be traversed at all.

For this reason time cannot have a beginning and therefore had to exist forever... How can you have a beginning to time??? How can you START counting moments when clearly you could continue counting the moments before time started??? Time is forever.

I'd also like everyone here to know something startling, space is nothing... yes it contains no oxygen, no atoms, NOTHING. Obviously there are bodies of gas in space, and stars and planets... but space itself is NOTHING. Space is never ending, because NOTHINGNESS has no beginning or end, and neither do moments of time.

I hope we can all agree on this??? I hope all the evolutionists on this forum can agree with me on something; it cannot be any other way.

So time is never ending and so is space... after all almost every scientist on the planet now agrees space has no ending. So the REAL question is how did WE start. Well no matter what you believe in we had to have a cause in order to come into effect. I doubt anyone is disagreeing with me so far.

So SOMETHING had to transcend time! Now was it atoms or was it god? That is the difference between evolution and creation.

Now I ask you, why does an atom have the properties it does? Why does it have an intricate design, a nucleus, electrons...? How was something like that ALWAYS there??? And if time never began then why are we here, how can we be here if it took an infinity to get here???

It can only be answered by god, god himself transcends time. God created our own perception of time, time started for us because we started when god decided to create us, he gave us the perception of time. But to him, time is different, time has no beginning or end, time is infinite. It somehow makes perfect sense, that time doesn?t actually exist to god, it is merely a perception given to us by our creator.

It is the ONLY logic. I'd like to hear your replies.

 

[FreemanHL2]

Actually we are discussing the "highly technical" subject of evolution transcending time.

People tend to think of time as being "physical" when it is merely our way of counting "moments." Time is not real, you cannot travel through time, because time has already passed, and it is just the name we give to passing moments. How do you suggest we travel back in time??? How can we relieve moments that have already passed??? Time is just our way of COUNTING moments and cannot be traversed at all.

For this reason time cannot have a beginning and therefore had to exist forever... How can you have a beginning to time??? How can you START counting moments when clearly you could continue counting the moments before time started??? Time is forever.

I'd also like everyone here to know something startling, space is nothing... yes it contains no oxygen, no atoms, NOTHING. Obviously there are bodies of gas in space, and stars and planets... but space itself is NOTHING. Space is never ending, because NOTHINGNESS has no beginning or end, and neither do moments of time.

I hope we can all agree on this??? I hope all the evolutionists on this forum can agree with me on something; it cannot be any other way.

So time is never ending and so is space... after all almost every scientist on the planet now agrees space has no ending. So the REAL question is how did WE start. Well no matter what you believe in we had to have a cause in order to come into effect. I doubt anyone is disagreeing with me so far.

So SOMETHING had to transcend time! Now was it atoms or was it god? That is the difference between evolution and creation.

Now I ask you, why does an atom have the properties it does? Why does it have an intricate design, a nucleus, electrons...? How was something like that ALWAYS there??? And if time never began then why are we here, how can we be here if it took an infinity to get here???

It can only be answered by god, god himself transcends time. God created our own perception of time, time started for us because we started when god decided to create us, he gave us the perception of time. But to him, time is different, time has no beginning or end, time is infinite. It somehow makes perfect sense, that time doesn?t actually exist to god, it is merely a perception given to us by our creator.

It is the ONLY logic. I'd like to hear your replies.

 

[FreemanHL2]

POST ERROR

 

[Anubis08]

If things evolve do to pressure then the human race will never again eveolve. If one being is born with a mutation that might have given him an advantage in the "wild", it is of no consequence as humans have almost stopped all pressures acting on them. This of course disregards humans living in certain areas of the world where humans have not taken away pressures like malaria.

 

[IH8 Money]

Anyone who says they have the answer to the question that is being asked is trying to convince themself. Asking this question is a "fishing" attempt to convince others of their belief, and I take this as a sign of doubt. Believe what you you want, and don't look for justification in others.
You could call me agnostic, and I am tired of all of the religous "crap." :disgust:
I am happy for my life, and I feel no obligation to figure out why I am.
Instead of putting so much energy(and frustration) into looking into the past, try to make your life as well as others better for the future in a way everyone can enjoy. Believe me, if I had the answer I would let you know. So this subject can use more help than asking a selfish question (that will probabaly not be answered in our lifetime.)

Very Bluntly
IH8 Money

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
So there are other religions that show man's problem of sin

Most religions (and all of the major ones) deal in some way or another with mankind's predilections for what might be called "evil" acts.

How so? Maybe they deal with it, but they all have a fundamental problem....they are inconsistent.

the only way out (Jesus Christ's atonement)

Why is that "the only way out"? I take it you don't find the teachings of, say, Buddhism (in a very small nutshell, that suffering is the result of being too bound to the material world, and that 'the way out' is letting go) to be acceptable in this regard?

That is the only way out because that is what Jesus himself said (see below).

and give comlete fulfillment in having a personal relationship with this Creator?

Many religions promise to bring you closer to God; whether or not any of them actually can is probably beyond the scope of the discussion here. "complete fulfillment" is a bit subjective, but many people seem happy with many non-Christian religions (or no religion whatsoever).

True, true, many do promise to bring you closer to God. But that is exactly where Christianity is different. At the core of all other religions is a prideful attempt of man to justify his existence and bring himself closer to God and bliss. Christianity, on the other hand, is completely the opposite. It claims the absolute depravity of man, that we can do nothing in and of ourselves, and that the only way out of that is through Jesus. In John 14:6, Jesus said, "Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.'"

No other religion will be able to offer anything close to the joy for which He created us (to glorify him and enjoy him forever) because they are all fundamentally inconsistent with themselves. No other religion is correct because it fails to completely answer man's dillema of reality. No other religion that can fully explain human existence in every facet of our character is simultaneously consistent, fulfilling; and true, besides Christianity.

Originally posted by: Lynx516
Well ignoring the ones that for the Chritian/Jewish branch. I will take Buddism as an example. It says "Suffering is life" (the sin part). That only be enlightenment will you transend this world (buddists beleive in reincarnatin) into a better place (your "only way out). and they dont have a creator they just accept that we are here.

(if you try to argue against their beleif that their is no creator please explain how god came into being?)

Again all others fail to consistently and completely answer the questions we have about why we are here. "Just accepting" that we are here leads us nowhere and is a blind faith.

But why must I explain how my God came into being? If what you say is true, then I don't have to have a reason for believing something that is irrational. In fact, nothing is irrational, or rational, for that matter (no pun intended). All is a result of cause and effect. But because Christianity is the only way to give meaning to an otherwise meaningless existence, I presuppose God exists.

In Exodus 3:14,

God said to Moses, " I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'"

Here God answers His existence. He is self existent. He is the absolute authority. Nothing exists without him.


And of course God is powerful enough to create a universe and have it do what he wants through evolution. And he did to some extent (micro evolution). But what he didn't do is choose to do it in the way most mean (macro evolution).

The truth of Christianity is the only self consistent, rational, and fulfilling belief/religion/absolute truth.

And I plead with you that you choose it.