I know the Bible is True

by SwedishChef 116 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  sunstarr

  Maybe if you weren't as uninformed as you portray yourself you'd understand that Evolution has nothing to do with any "primordial form".

  Maybe if you didn't make assumptions as quickly as you do, you would be able to make appropriate responses. If you will review what I wrote, you will notice that I never used the term "evolution." I quoted Charles Darwin, who clearly has a negative take on the idea of a Creator, and then pointed out the ridiculousness of the idea of a "primordial form" from which all organic beings descended. I don't care what term you use to define it (e.g., evolution, abiogenesis). I simply stated that it was no less ridiculous than the quotes given from the bible.

  You'll do well to note that many atheists on this board, including myself, have done extensive research in theology and biblical studies in addition to studying science and logic.

  Again, good for you. I certainly never stated that you, or any of the other athiests on this board hadn't studied the bible or theology. However, that doesn't qualify you as "more informed" simply because you've turned your back on it.
• 

  rem

  Sunstarr,

  Notice that Charles Darwin's masterpiece was called Origin of Species... not Origin of Life. Oh, yeah... you never read Origin of Species, so you don't know what you are talking about. There is a big difference between Abiogenesis and Evolution, and the fact that you don't know that betrays your self-inflicted ignorance. Charles Darwin's theory has everything to do with change of life after it started and nothing to do with the beginning of life. Got it?

  The fact that I and others have studied both theology and science does, in fact, qualify us as "more informed" over those who have only studied the former.

  rem
• 

  sunstarr

  Rem,

  Apparently you are too in love with reading your own words to clearly see what I have written. I don't care if Darwin believed in creation or not. What I do care about is you and the many others like you on this board constantly attacking the validity of the believers' claim that there is a Creator. The fact is, Darwin was suggesting that all organic beings descended from one "primordial form." That was simply stated. Another fact: Many here buy into Darwin's theories. Another fact: Many here who accept Darwin's theories also believe there is no Creator. Ready for the conclusion? It is no less insane to accept the existence of a "primordial form" than it is to accept the existence of God. The issue isn't Darwin's beliefs in creation. The issue is the beliefs of you and others atheists here. Whether Darwin is describing evolution or abiogenesis is irrelevant, as my point has little to do with Darwin, and much to do with you.

  The fact that I and others have studied both theology and science does, in fact, qualify us as "more informed" over those who have only studied the former.

  Well, I'm certainly convinced. Thank you for that enlightening piece of evidence. Yes, you're right because you say so. Ok. Who said the people I was referring to have not also studied science? You have again assumed too much.
• 

  rem

  Sunstarr,

  Since you cannot even accurately characterize the theory of Evolution and how it is different than Abiogenesis, it is safe to assume that you have not studied science. Either that or you're an idiot.

  The fact is, Darwin was suggesting that all organic beings descended from one "primordial form."

  Looks like you are the one that has trouble with assumptions. Where did Darwin indicate that it was impossible that a Creator made the "primordial form"? Oh yeah... you just assumed that part. Why is that? Because you don't have even a basic understanding of science. Perhaps you should learn something instead of speaking of things that you do not understand.

  If you can't understand that Evolution has nothing to do with Atheism (or Abiogenesis), then there is no help for you. I suppose the fact that many Christians accept Evolution is lost on you. Do you believe they are Atheists as well?

  The issue is the beliefs of you and others atheists here. Whether Darwin is describing evolution or abiogenesis is irrelevant, as my point has little to do with Darwin, and much to do with you

  Atheists do not disbelieve in gods because of Evolution. Evolution just shows one other area where a god is not necessary. There are many other compelling reasons to disbelieve in gods. For someone who likes to point fingers about making assumptions you certainly make a lot erroneous ones yourself.

  Continue reading your fairy tales about talking snakes and believing they are true. I prefer Paul Bunyan, myself. But even as a child I was able to recognize it as fiction.

  rem
• 

  sunscapes

  This Scritpture describes God's Word so beautifully:

  HEBREWS 4:12:" For the word of God is alive and exerts power and is sharper than any two-edged sword and pierces even to the dividing soul and spirit, and of joints and [their] marrow, and [is] able to discern thoughts and intentions of [the] heart."

  Christian Love,

  AwakenedAndFree

  well, the thing is with the bible is that it is a compilation of stories, lineage, history, wars, famines, destruction, construction, etc. that it is not 100% god speaking all the time...God's word is in the bible, but not all the bible text is god's word...most of it quite frankly is human error and misery. The Gospels of Jesus do the above...beyond that precious little is actually god speaking and most of it is human misery and interaction...

  most of the time the only 2 edged sword is the one the jews carried into battle against their enemy-du-jour...
• 

  sunstarr

  Where did Darwin indicate that it was impossible that a Creator made the "primordial form"?

  What part of "I don't care if Darwin believed in creation or not" don't you understand? I made no assumptions in that direction, and you have shown your inability to read plain language. As usual, this argument has been made into twelve others, which is completely unnecessary. It really boils down to this: You and others will accept that all life grew from some ancient ooze, yet you scoff at the idea of a snake possessed by a spirit.

  If you can't understand that Evolution has nothing to do with Atheism (or Abiogenesis), then there is no help for you.

  What you cannot understand is that I made no connection between the two. My point centered around accepting something for which there is no solid evidence.

  I suppose the fact that many Christians accept Evolution is lost on you. Do you believe they are Atheists as well?

  I don't claim that all atheists are evolutionists. Nor do I claim that all evolutionists are atheists. Many here, however, are both. Those are the ones to whom I direct my point. You needn't make this issue any larger than it actually is.

  Atheists do not disbelieve in gods because of Evolution.

  I never said they did. However, atheists who ascribe to the idea that all life is a victim of circumstance are no less "ignorant" than theists who believe life came from a Creator.

  Continue reading your fairy tales about talking snakes and believing they are true.

  I'll do that. And you continue reading your science fiction about "primordial forms." I'll watch Planet of the Apes. Much more entertaining.
• 

  heathen

  Although I believe that all religion are cults I do believe the bible account to be very interesting .I realize also that people have tampered with it and tried incessantly to force their beliefs on others.The constant attempts to mix church and state has only added to human suffering through out history .The message of love your neighbor as yourself is a verry profound reality .There cannot be peace on earth unless people take that message to heart and treat each other with love and understanding rather than contempt with only selfish intent.The bible is very unique in that everytime secular science has challenged the historical accuracy they seem to find new evidence that supports the accuracy of the events and people mentioned in it .For example the fact that king Nebochadnezzar existed was first aknowledged in the bible and later proven as fact .Senacharib of Asseria was also challenged and later without any question evidence to support his existance surfaced.Who knows what else will surface ?If they ever get the chance to escavate the site where babylon is in Iraq more thoroughly it would be a very intersesting endeavor cause if I remember correctly they did find evidence to support the tower of babel episode in the form of an ancient plaque of some kind which they dated to that erra.Only time will tell .
• 

  rem

  What part of "I don't care if Darwin believed in creation or not" don't you understand?

  Nice attempt at trying to sidestep the issue. You provided the citation of Darwin's words. Now you try to claim that you don't care what Darwin had to say. Wow! Interesting debate strategy. Fortunately everyone sees through your intellectually dishonest charade.

  rem
• 

  sunstarr

  Rem,

  What I said is that Darwin's beliefs concerning creation are irrelevant. We aren't talking about Darwin's beliefs in a Creator. What we are talking about is your beliefs concerning a Creator. I use Darwin's words because many here accept his theories. I don't care if he believed that the "ooze" came from God or not. You, however, clearly believe that it did not come from a Creator. It is to you that I direct my argument. It is not to Darwin. If Charles Darwin made the statement, "I believe in the God of the Bible," would you accept it as fact? Certainly you would not. Therefore, you take his theories and apply them to your already existing disbelief in God. Again, the bottom line is that you will accept his theory about a "primordial form" (whether or not he believed in God) yet laugh at those who believe in angels and demons. It's hypocrisy and it makes me sick.
• 

  rem

  Sunstarr,

  You only perceive it as hypocrisy because you don't have any understanding of science or logic. If I were a Christian (and I was) I would still agree with Darwin's statement (and I did). Evolution is a fact with much evidence - it is no fairy tale. You are bringing up a straw man with Abiogenesis, which has nothing to do with Darwin's theory. Evolution is valid whether or not you believe in god.

  I only accept what has evidence. There is no evidence of gods or talking snakes. There is much evidence that all life is related. The logical conclusion is that all life has a single common ancestor... whether that be "ooze" or self-replicating molecules or whatever. God could have done it, Invisible Pink Unicorns could have done it, Aliens could have done it, or they could have spontaneously been created by events in the environment. Since there is no evidence of any gods (at least none that are defined by men), Invisible Pink Unicorns, or aliens, then the most probable conclusion is that the self replicating molecules came about spontaneously (Occham's razor). To be sure, the jury is not out on Abiogenesis... no one knows how it happened, but no one has proved that it could have ONLY happened by an intelligent creator. There is much promising study being done in this field. Perhaps if you did some research on it you would see that it is not as preposterous as you might think.

  Heck, I think time dialation in the Theory of Relativity seems absurd, but it's the truth. The math doesn't lie, so I have to put away my preconcieved notions of how the universe behaves and accept what has been observed and what has evidence. There is nothing resembling this logic in talking snakes or any of the other absurdities in the bible. In fact there are many scientific errors in the bible. Surely it's not rational to believe a book full of scientific errors came from the supposed creator of the universe.

  rem