[Credendovidis]

Hey Cred! I would ask you to do the same.

The idea of a Q&A board is first of all to answer the topic question. And my reply did just that.
Please read that question, and you surely will agree with me on that.

As to Christian believers : in nearly all my posts I state that everyone is (should be) free to believe whatever one prefers.
People should be free to believe, and also be free from belief, if so preferred.

As to your reaction, and with all respect :

1-I did not ask a question. My post replied to the topic question (twice now).
2-I always try to see things from both sides.
3-You stated that God is all powerful, that He has limitless ability, that he/she/it is Almighty and ever-present everywhere. But that is what you BELIEVE. Fine with me. But if you want me to accept that as a reality, you have to provide objective supporting evidence for all of that!
4-"If I believed that ... " is no valid argumentation but an invalid proposition. I do not.
5-"He (God) indeed exists forever". Again that is what you believe. It is a hypothesis. Not a fact. At least no objective supported evidence for that has ever been provided.

Please realize that I do not attack your religious views. I just point out what should be clear to all.
:rolleyes:

[Credendovidis]

Cred: "I was responding to that"

No you were not. I clearly indicated that there are limits to science and to what appears to be reality. You however introduce a new topic here, simply because you do not WANT or CAN NOT or SEEM UNWILLING to reply to the topic question and/or my reaction to that topic question.

May I remind you that this topic is NOT about two ways of making atp.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about the energy currency of cells.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about our mitochondria.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about the "krebs" cycle.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about the electron transport chain.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about glucose/ carbohydrate.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about plants.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about chloroplasts.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about "symetry" and balance in plants.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about survival of the fittest.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about producing atp most efficient.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about having chloroplasts and mitochondria in one cell.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about getting energy by eating and breathing o2 (?)
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about switching to sun, co2 and h2o.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about the cellular equivalent of a Prius.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about the Cambrian "big bang".
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about "bioloical" (whatever that is).
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about Darwins "tree of life".
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about today's phyla.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about evolution.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about the origins of the universe.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about life on this planet.

This topic centers around the topic question, and replies to that question.
Even if that topic question was rather unclear on it's intention.
But certainly it was not on all these points I mentioned from your lines.

If you want to start a topic on the Evolution Theory, than do so.
On the proper board, and with an appropriate topic question.
Not by trying to blow up another topic because you have no valid reply to one of the reactions there.

It is not I who is trying to dodge anything. You are doing that!
;)

Please note : this is the topic question here :

- Very few Christians disagree with that notion- only the very liberal sort who can barely call themselves Christians, having no idea what it's about nor having read the bible on which it is based.

What's that little bit about "no one reaches the father except by me", not to mention constant 1 expression throughout the old testament- including in the 'ten commandments' about accepting YHWH or else…
2-Sure, religious people have the right to be hypocrites. If they don't want to be hypocrites, then if they want to 'correct' their points of views that have already been mandated in a 'perfect divinely inspired' book, then they need to admit that that book is pretty much useless as a source of any facts.

It's a fiction. We can take moral lessons from fiction- that's fine- but until people admit that it is a work of fiction and not of their god, they have no honest basis to go about changing things on a whim3
Science accepts itself as self-correcting. Science is not based on 'revealed' truth, but reasoned truth, meaning things can be updated and improved, and as such, has nothing to do with religion.

Religion is inherently conservative- it relies on it. what you say about this help me

[sassyT]

Cred, Question for you.. I was just readind the statement you just posted.
"I believe it as soon as I see it "
So are you saying you only believe in things you can only see?

[inthebox]

No you were not. I clearly indicated that there are limits to science and to what appears to be reality. You however introduce a new topic here, simply because you do not WANT or CAN NOT or SEEM UNWILLING to reply to the topic question and/or my reaction to that topic question.

May I remind you that this topic is NOT about two ways of making atp.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about the energy currency of cells.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about our mitochondria.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about the "krebs" cycle.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about the electron transport chain.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about glucose/ carbohydrate.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about plants.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about chloroplasts.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about "symetry" and balance in plants.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about survival of the fittest.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about producing atp most efficient.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about having chloroplasts and mitochondria in one cell.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about getting energy by eating and breathing o2 (?)
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about switching to sun, co2 and h2o.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about the cellular equivalent of a Prius.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about the Cambrian "big bang".
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about "bioloical" (whatever that is).
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about Darwins "tree of life".
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about today's phyla.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about evolution.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about the origins of the universe.
May I remind you that this topic is NOT about life on this planet.

This topic centers around the topic question, and replies to that question.
Even if that topic question was rather unclear on it's intention.
But certainly it was not on all these points I mentioned from your lines.

If you want to start a topic on the Evolution Theory, than do so.
On the proper board, and with an appropriate topic question.
Not by trying to blow up another topic because you have no valid reply to one of the reactions there.

It is not I who is trying to dodge anything. You are doing that!
;)

Please note : this is the topic question here :

This is a quote from your post #116 on the Bible being [ not ] factual.


"That is a ridiculous claim. There is overwhelming scientific objective evidence for evolution"


Yet you nor any other scientist can prove what I have asked.


If you are true to your saying "I'll believe it when I see it."

Then neither will you believe evolutionary theory, unless you have all the "provable" answers.

An honest answer would be we/ I don't know.

[Fr_Chuck]

Just remember that when dealling with non Christians, they wish to set the rules that only they will accept, so they set the game field up so that no answer will satisfy them, any attempt will only draw them back to another area or wanting to change the game field,

In the end, they can not prove there is NOT a God, so since they can not prove there is not one, that means there has to be one,
That makes as much sense as their statements that they will not BELIEVE it, unless they see it, since belief in something is only really possible without seeing it, believe takes a faith,
But for a christian, it is far past belief, it is knowing, since once God is in their heart, they also feel it, and for many they will see the workings of God. But you don't see or feel, until you believe first.

[Fr_Chuck]

I have no idea why and what over 2/3 of your posts have to do with the actually question, so addressing that question

Actually most Christians or any religious are not hypocrites, but that does not mean you don't have them in a church, In fact there are a percent of athiests and other non beleivers in every church in the US, and many pastors are not even beleivers, We were told this happens even in the bible. So merely a person who calls thierself a christian means nothing, it is their actions that prove if they really are, or if they are not.

Next you are totally wrong, the bible is a very historical book, proven by sceince time and time again from 100's of studeis. Next no it is not fiction, so your idea is wrong from the start, so your question in itself is pointless since you assume a false idea. But yes it is moral lessons and people need to learn from it, even if they don't accept the truth of it, the moral issues are universial or should be. But God is not self adjusting bu he is growing, as he made new agreements with mankind, though the old testement and the new.

What is self correcting is the evil man brings from time to time into religion, not the word of God, but the evil man sometimes drags into it, in the name of religion.

As for as the bible, esp the Old testement, it is the basis in general for three of the major religions, which don't even agree on other issues, if that does not draw it into a truth, I don't know what else could

But science is often based on assumed truths, and don't adapt easy, but since science does not prove Chrsitianity wrong, there is no issue in it,
It is science that is scared of Christianity, not Christinaity that is scared of religion


No, Religion is merely moral, mankind is just not wanting to follow moral values, So basically mankind does not wish to follow morality,
But again man never did want to follow morality.
And your view of it as either right or left is merely a opinon or belief, it is perhaps middle of the road, and everone that is not following it is way to the one side too far, that may be an opinon of it also.

[Credendovidis]

... So are you saying you only believe in things you can only see?

Hello Sassy !

Please keep in mind that it has ALWAYS been my opinion that everyone should be free to believe whatever one prefers to believe.

CredendoVidis is my credo ever since I first joined boards like WeTellYou, Answerway and AskMe HelpDesk , and noticed that many Christians there claim that what they BELIEVE is the "one and only truth", as if it is factual.
There even is a topic here that seeks to prove that the Bible is factual.

I use that credo to express that there is a clear difference between BELIEVING, KNOWING, and BEING the truth / factual !
:rolleyes:

[Credendovidis]

Yet you nor any other scientist can prove what I have asked.

I clearly indicated several times that there are limits to science and to what appears to be reality. I also stated that the scientific evidence for evolution is incomplete.
That noted, the scientific support for the Evolution Theory is overwhelming, far beyond what you suggest it to be : alike a Swiss cheese full of holes in it.

I have no control over what any other human beings state and/or claim.
But if you say that evolution is not true at all (even with all the scientific evidence that is available for it), than why do you support the religious claim that the Bible etc. is factual (without hardly any scientific evidence for that being available)?
That attitude is hypocrite.
:rolleyes:

[snowgirl]

inthebox so if



1. not having two methods to produce atp is inefficient.



2. god created everything.



Then….. well, you can do the math

[sassyT]

I clearly indicated several times that there are limits to science and to what appears to be reality. I also stated that the scientific evidence for evolution is incomplete.
That noted, the scientific support for the Evolution Theory is overwhelming, far beyond what you suggest it to be : alike a Swiss cheese full of holes in it.

I have no control over what any other human beings state and/or claim.
But if you say that evolution is not true at all (even with all the scientific evidence that is available for it), than why do you support the religious claim that the Bible etc. is factual (without hardly any scientific evidence for that being available)?
That attitude is hypocrite.
:rolleyes:

Thank for admitting that there is an insuffiencient amount of evidence to prove evolution. If you believe in evolution despite the lack of evidence then you have faith.
To me evolution is not even science. Evolution is about as scientific as a voodoo rooster plucking ceremony in Haiti... lol Almost.

Science means "to know" and "systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, etc." It is based on observation and experimentation. Evolutionists don't "know" anything about man's origins. They assume, guess, suppose, speculate, etc. but they don't "know." Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science.
Dawin was not even a trained scientist.. lol he was a trained minister. So those with FAITH in evolution like yourself, are worshipping at the feet of an apostate preacher or what I like to call the CHURCH OF DARWINISM.

[inthebox]

inthebox so if



1. not having two methods to produce atp is inefficient.



2. god created everything.



Then….. well, you can do the math

If I believed in evolution as he source and creator of everything, and if evolution is about natural selection as a force that allows "beneficial" mutations to reproduce at a higher rate, I have to wonder why the advantage of 2 cellular energy sources were not 1] a "beneficial" mutation that has not already occurred in the past 2 billion years, 2] why we humans are not "evolving" into a more superior form.

Are we better than are ancestors? Yes, in a lot of ways.
- We have used our INTELLIGENCE to see better with glasses, lasik surgery, binoculars, telescopes. We did not evolve a "better" eye that can "see" ultraviolet or infrared.
- We have used oue INTELLIGENCE to invent and make planes to fly us - though that may not be the case with American airlines. - We did not evolve wings.
- We have used our INTELLIGENCE to communicate worldwide via the internet. We did not evolve a 6th or 7th or 8th sense to accomplish that.
- We have used our INTELLIGENCE to advance medical care. We did not evolve a perfect immune system or cancer resistance.

Every advance in the history of humanity is due to INTELLIGENCE, not a natural selction of a "beneficial" gene. In fact as science advances we discover new genetic abnormalities or mutations that are related to disease and illnes. For example breast cancer, colon cancer, alzheimers, hemophilia etc...


There is suffering, and tragedy, and unexplainable horrors in this world and in this lifetime.
It is very hard to accept that God would allow this. The bible tells us that we are fallen and imperfect as a result of sin. The suffering we witnesss is the result of sin.


God is our answer to sin and also our hope.