Thread: Christmas poll

Originally Posted by MinniesMate

I couldn't disagree more. This the argument that all atheist use. However, there IS indeed evidence that support the Bible. It is one of the few documents that explain much of what happened in the past. It is a reference book that has been used to correlate geological evidence with the history of man. The varying opinions are because skeptics try to take certain events out of context. The flexibility of the Word is what makes it unique as a religious document. No matter what one experiences, if you look to the Bible you can usually find events and passages that relate to your experience and be comforted by the Word.

So you would agree with what I said about the world beginning around 11,000BCE? This is far too short a time period for anything even remotely space/time related to effect. Again (again), you are just stating here that "certain events" are true because they are in the Bible without any corroborating evidence. If you are trying to prove the validity of the Bible on a chronological, geological scale, then this is most certainly a case where I think evidence should be required. Do a forum search on creationism for more info.

Originally Posted by MinniesMate

Evolution and Darwinism reject anything that they can not prove, yet they cannot prove evolution and natural selection. They cherry pick the "proof" that supports their position. Example, Darwin based much of his theory of natural selection on the fact that he had found no animals like the ones in the Galapagos Islands any where else. I, as gardener at my home, recognize that there is only one part of my yard that gets enough sunlight for enough hours of the day to grow hybrid tea roses. I, as gardener at my home, selected this spot for my wife's rose garden. I could have put them in other areas of the yard, but they would not have thrived there like they do in that one spot in my garden. I have planted other types of roses (wild rose bushes, etc.) in other parts of my garden and they have thrived but they are not hybrid tea roses. So why would God have not put the type of land tortoise that would have thrived in the Galapagos there and not in another area of the world? Same thing with giraffes. They would not have thrived in North America, so why put them here?

So what you're saying here is that it has nothing to do with plate tectonics, climate change, ocean floor fault lines or anything like that? You may want to check up on what you think you know about evolution and the changing landscape of our planet (beyond 11,000 BCE). You are not thinking on a large enough scale. Prior to land tortoises on the Galapagos, there were no Galapagos. The animals that live there are DIRECTLY a result of the volcanic activity in that area, which FORMED the islands and CAUSED the warm water climate in the immediate region surrounded by cool, depths which, as any marine biologist will tell you, is a ****tail that tons of both land and sea animals thrive upon. God nothing.

Originally Posted by MinniesMate

Additionally, Evolutionist and Darwinist don't take one thing into consideration: Time and Space are inseparable. We now think in terms of "Space/Time". As space expands from the "Big Bang" so does the time it takes for that expansion. If a balloon encompasses space/time, the surface of the balloon represents the physical Universe and the gas inside represents time. As the Universe expands, the amount of time contained in it expands exponentially. The more space there is the more time there is. If we trace the physical Universe backward to the Big Bang, we see that time will compress at an astonishing rate so that a billion years worth of expansion condenses into roughly half a day. Six days of creation plus one day of rest will account for the expansion of approximately 14.7 billion years. In other words, no matter when you start, the Big Bang or today, and move in the direction of the other along the geological time line, you will cover the seven days relative to your time in space, but space will extend for approximately 14.7 billion years in relation to the Universe's time.

This paragraph is pretty out of control. There is no "exponential expansion of space/time" the way you describe it. Read up on red/blue shifts in measuring interplanetary expansion. Scientists have been able to measure and trace the expansion of the universe to the point of the big bang but not before. I've spoken about this in other threads but it keeps coming up. If you want to get into creationism (again) I suggest we start a new thread.

Originally Posted by MinniesMate

I won't take sides in any argument that puts Non-Catholics against Catholics. Your last statement is an attempt at adding discord among different denominations in Christianity.

Why not? Wasn't my question legitimate? Or are you happy just believing EVERYTHING that another sect believes save a few minor details? Are Catholics / The Vatican wrong for entertaining evolutionist ideas?

Originally Posted by MinniesMate

............

The difference between an athiest and an agnostic is the athiest says, [There is] "no God." and the agnostic says, "No" to God.

Incorrect. The agnostic says "I don't know if there's a [God, higher being, etc] or not." Unless Christians have some other definition for it that I'm not sure of, in which case, I'll stand corrected (by Christians).

Originally Posted by gssixgun

1.)
2.) To every other Christian on here quoting scripture, Hmmmm hello we don't believe, that just doesn't prove anything to us....

I believe these debates would fall flat on their face if this stopped.

Originally Posted by TheBaron

Obviously there was no gain in the face of their persecution, but this persecution could have easily been the end result of a ruse they employed for gains that did not come to fruition.

I am not saying the apostles were definitely con men, and I am not saying that the apostles were definitely persecuted saints. What I am saying is that the statement made does not prove they were either nor does it prove the existence of their leader.

I would think they were aware of the risk of their faith. Early Christians hid in the Catacombs in Rome. They knew if they were found out they would be put to death. Why risk it? Just go on with your life as before and you have no more problem, easy right? But people were willing do die before renouncing their faith, and it continues to this day. That is strong medicine.

Besides that, what would they possibly have to gain by conning anyone?

Originally Posted by Miner123

I would think they were aware of the risk of their faith. Early Christians hid in the Catacombs in Rome. They knew if they were found out they would be put to death. Why risk it? Just go on with your life as before and you have no more problem, easy right? But people were willing do die before renouncing their faith, and it continues to this day. That is strong medicine.

Besides that, what would they possibly have to gain by conning anyone?

You are correct, people to this day are willing to die for their faith without ever actually seeing Jesus, So it could be reasoned that the apostles could have been willing to die for their faith without ever seeing Jesus.