you asked if i believe in islam, yes i do. Of course Islam have a founder and their history can be traced.
No, I asked if you believed the CLAIMS of Islam. First you say you do, then you say you don't. It's almost the same as with the origin of life discussion earlier, first you say life can only come from life, then you say god created it out of nothing. You keep contradicting yourself.I hunt for the truth
In my second last post I've pointed out how feelings, perceptions can get in the way of making one's final decision. The New Encyclopaedia Britannica gives its take on the issue are they wrong i think so, based on what the bible itself teaches, not what the church fathers have said. I have given you versus that strongly suggest the deity of jesus, either he (jesus) is a seperate god next to God or the bible has contradicted itself. Because in other places it talks about the oneness of God Mar 12:29; Rom 3:30; Eph 4:6. And another thing just because the catholic church has said something doesn't make it right, the catholic church is not the ultimate authority of biblical text, remember body of christ is composed of the entire christian population, not just some denominations.
quote: The same thing applies at science. Evolutionist and creationist share the same body of evidences; the difference is how they approach that evidence.
Except for those parts that the creationists refuse to acknowledge.
What you miss out is that evolutionists agree with scientific investigation of the universe while the creationists seek to force everything to fit their existing beliefs.
quote: Let me give an example. An evolution fossilist unearths a strange skeleton and says huh, look it a missing link, whereas a creationist would simply conclude, huh, look it’s a new creature. Which position is more logical, a transition between two individuals or an animal that resembles features present in the two animals because the same God made them all.
In the case of a general anatomical intermediate - which is the only one where the scientist would be strongly making the claim that it was a transitional - then obviously the scientist's view would be more rational. The creationist may howl that it is just another coincidence and try to sweep it under the carpet - but there are just too many to account for in that way. (Of course creationists try to deny the existence of transitional fossils - it is a prime example of how creationists refuse to even acknowledge the evidence).
You are too huntard, and the fact alone that you inconvenience yourself to return my posts is proof in it self that you're troubled to a degree. Admit it come on.
No I'm not. If your god does exist, and we meet him in the afterlife, I'm going to hell already anyway. So I really couldn't care less.
They may be different God's but that's not my point, my point is that people all over have worshiped some form of god. They look up into space because they feel that there must be something much greater than they somewhere out there.
Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean a god is responsible for it. Arguments from incredulity aren't something to base one's life upon.
In any case to clear the confusion of the multiple god's the real God gave us the bible, exposing the one and only true God, and as if that wasn't enough he came down in flesh to persuade the world of his aloneness as the only God.
And how do we know this is the real god, and not some other one having a laugh with you because he fooled you into believing false claims?I hunt for the truth
what parts do creationist ignore, please point out. Creationist do not ignore any evidence they just interpret it differently from the Evolutionist who also interpret the same evidence differently. Again you are trying to claim that your interpretation of the evidence is the right one, bear in mind there are many things in the world that resemble each other but similarity isn't enought to conclude that a set of things had a common ancestor, they may have been the products of the same inventor.
With the exception of Kurt Wise most creationists deny the existence of transitional fossils.
That's the example I gave.
quote: Creationist do not ignore any evidence they just interpret it differently from the Evolutionist who also interpret the same evidence differently.
That's the creationist propaganda line. And it's a lie.
quote: Again you are trying to claim that your interpretation of the evidence is the right one, bear in mind there are many things in the world that resemble each other but similarity isn't enought to conclude that a set of things had a common ancestor, they may have been the products of the same inventor.
Because of the pattern of similarities in time (and space, too). Evolution explains the pattern we see - it was that knowledge that let scientists find the famous tiktaalik fossil.
Creationism, on the other hand can only offer "God just did it that way" but cannot offer any reason why God would just happen to produce the sort of pattern that would be expected if evolution were true. (Which is why creationists try to deny the existence of the evidence).
By this very fact the evidence DOES favour evolution - it explains the pattern in a way that creationism does not.
this is what evolutionist do, they dig up two individuals and when they look alike describe them as being part of the same branch of the evoltuionary tree of life. I don't think that is logical reasoning, it's just like I happen upon a fork with one missing prong in a layer of dirt and then in a higher layer of dirt just above that one I discover a fork not missing any of its prongs, shall I then conclude the latter one evolved the the former. Silly.
And for your information no true missing link has been found so far from the time the first search for them kick-started. And any fossil presented as a missing link is surrounded by great speculation and contention. and if missing links did exist why did paleontologists often resort to forgeries. and as far as the evidence thing is concerned there is no propaganda you would like to think so because it would mean that evolution is just and interpretion amongst many, and not the so-called paramount theory to explain life. The universe and all its content is evidence to something that happened a long time ago, creatinonist explore the universe just like evolutionist do, we have the same evidence to work with, its the interpretaion that differ and actually matters.
it's just like I happen upon a fork with one missing prong in a layer of dirt and then in a higher layer of dirt just above that one I discover a fork not missing any of its prongs, shall I then conclude the latter one evolved the the former. Silly.
Of course that's silly, forks don't reproduce. nor do they have genetics that allow for mutation. Most importantly however, because they are not alive, they are not subject to natural selection.
quote: And for your information no true missing link has been found so far from the time the first search for them kick-started.
Thanks for proving my point. Creationists deny that the evidence even exists.
quote: And any fossil presented as a missing link is surrounded by great speculation and contention.
quote: and if missing links did exist why did paleontologists often resort to forgeries
They don't. Can you name even five examples of "missing links" shown to be forged by paleontologists ?
quote: and as far as the evidence thing is concerned there is no propaganda you would like to think so because it would mean that evolution is just and interpretion amongst many, and not the so-called paramount theory to explain life.
The fact that you happen to fall for creationist propaganda does not make it any less untrue.
quote: The universe and all its content is evidence to something that happened a long time ago, creatinonist explore the universe just like evolutionist do, we have the same evidence to work with, its the interpretaion that differ and actually matters.
Which is why creationists have to resort to untruths and falsehoods so often.
That's what evolutionist do in reality, and for your information there is no known mechanism to transform one organism into another. and the proposed mechanisms just don't have room for evoltuionary change, the odds are against evolutionary change. Please stop trying to give mutations more credit than is due to them, and live with the fact that evolution atleast 'macro' is not possible.
You can always gauge the depth of delusion when believers start retreating from the world of reality into the lyricism of their faith. The language gets more expansive, the praise more effusive, the quotes more extensive. The 'grandeur' and 'love' boileth over.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, the malevolence of life carves its destructive ways through believer and realist alike. As the world`s population multiplies, numbers affected rise and intensity of infliction increases held only at bay by that most derided by believers--science. Do believers let the penny drop? Nope. They pray harder, blame those outside their faith, and scan their belief-books ever more closely to feed their delusion.
Meanwhile,back in the real world, as it has during the history of the human race, diseases increase, parasites multiply, viruses emerge, fungi attack---all courtesy of the Creator of Everything. If you believe the deluded.
Not content with destroying humans, supposedly as a result of ONE man`s error, this Being of 'grandeur' and 'love' created afflictions for the lesser lights of this world, animals, birds, insects, fish, etc.. Hell, even the bacteria HE created turn on each other. What did THEY do to share our penalties?
So, believers, stop navel-gazing, grab a dose of reality. Go out there and get infected. Soon.
O, with delight, lets start with the 1. Piltdown Hoax, not only was the Piltdown skull itself fraudulent but the entire mammalian fauna of the gravels had been planted and the human artefacts manufactured. The main suspect to date is, Charles Dawson. And yet it somehow fooled for 40 years the world's top experts. I wonder how this happened 2. Nebraska Man - On receiving a tooth [found in Nebraska] from a Mr. Harold Cook, H. F. Osborn (head of the American Museum of Natural History) declared it had characteristics which were a mixture of human, chimpanzee and pithecanthropus. He named it Hesperopithecus haroldcookii (Harold Cook's Evening Ape). It was discovered to be a fraud in 1953, it turned out to be the tooth of an exstinct pig. 3. A skull, found in Spain and promoted as the oldest example of [man] in Eurasia, was later identified as that of a young donkey [This was in 1984]. 4. In 1983 an American anthropologist tried to pass off a dolphin's rib as the collarbone of a prehistoric man. 5. A report from the Los Angeles Times recently had the byline, "Once Hailed as a Missing Link, Forgery is Found to be Mosaic of Fossils from Microraptor and a Bird" (Los Angeles Times, December 2, 2002, p. A12). here are some more highlights from the same report, "...the Chinese fossil had every appearance of a feathered dinosaur that flew like a modern bird. The purported missing link made headlines when National Geographic trumpeted the find in 1999, then caused red faces when it was revealed as a forgery a year later. Researchers in China and at the American Museum of Natural History in New York now have completely deciphered the deception. The find wrongly hailed as a crucial link between the dinosaurs and the birds actually does contain fossils of a dinosaur and a bird. But the only connection between them is glue."
And another thing just because the catholic church has said something doesn't make it right, the catholic church is not the ultimate authority of biblical text
I agree with you, the CC is not the ultimate authority on biblical text and yet they were the ones who formulated the idea of the trinity.
the same trinity that most other christian denominations now also teach.
But I do think the scriptures are the ultimate authority. So what do they say?
quote:Acts7:55 says that Stephen was given a vision of Heaven and says that he saw 'Jesus standing at the right hand of God'
Stephen saw 2 separate entities, Jesus and God...but no Holy Spirit.
quote:Matt 26:39 'Jesus fell on his face and prayed, My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass before me; nevertheless, not as I will but as thou wilt'
If the Father and the Son were not two distinct individuals, this prayer would have been pointless because he would have been praying to himself for his own will to be passed from himself.
quote:John8:17 'Jesus answered the Pharasees: In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true; I bear witness to myself and the Father who sent me bears witness to me'
Here again Jesus separates himself from his Father as individuals.
quote:Rev 1:1 'The revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave him'
If Jesus and God were the same person, this would be impossible
quote:Mark 13:32 'Of that day and hour nobody knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father'
If Jesus and the Father were the same person, Jesus would have known when Judgment day would be... according to his own words, he did not know Gods timetable.
quote:Mathew 20:20 'The mother of the sons of Zebedee said Command that these two sons of mine may sit at your right and left hand in your kingdom. But Jesus answered...to sit and my right and left hand is not mind to give, but it is for those to whom it has been prepared by my Father'
Jesus here was showing that his authority is not as great as that of his Father who hold the ultimate authority.
quote:Mathew 12:31 'And whoever says a word against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirrt will not be forgiven'
This outrightly contradicts the trinity because it shows that the Holy Spirit is greater then the Son because if one blasphemes against the Son, he will be forgiven, but not if one sins against the Holy Spirit.
quote:John 14:28 'The father is greater then I am'
it cant be any clearer then this statement of Jesus. they were not equal, the Father was greater.
quote:1Cor 11:3 'The head of every man is the Christ, the head of a woman is her husband and the head of Christ is God.
here we see that the headship arrangement applies Christ. He is subject to God the same way that man is subject to him and a woman to her husband. This is a subordinate position that Jesus had to his God. They can not be equal.
quote:1Cor 15:27 'God has put all things in subjection under Jesus feet...When all things are subjected to him ,then the Son himself will also be subjected to him...that God may be all things to everyone'
Here we see that Jesus will come to be subjected to God. How can this be if he is God. How can he subject himself to himself?
Cedre, you gave me a few scriptures which you say prove the trinity to be factual. Yet all the scriptures i posted above are obviously contrary to the trinity.
You also acknowledge that the teachings of a the catholic church, a church that has admitted that the trinity was not an original biblical teaching, are not the authority... so which should i believe?