WarMonkeyMan

Let me get this straight... You just answered me informing you of a scientific rule... with verses that have nothing to do with it? And you laughed about it? Are you ok? I mean, come on! Are you even TRYING to make sense?

Stalin was bad, I'm sure. Psychiatry isn't bad, and is in fact made to help people. Only when necessary, mate.

Whichever way you slice it, or, in this case, define it, it's still not caused by atheism. Evolution isn't doing it. Saying that they are is just passing the buck. It's just another cop-out.

Dude, Psychiatry isn't bad. And really, evolution and atheism have nothing to do with the rise of lawlessness in the youth of the nation. I would know, I AM a youth of the nation. Lawlessness comes from a want or a need, and seeing an easy way to get that want or need satisfied is considered the best way. Not doing so makes things harder for you, and this is seen especially in big cities. Why do you think drugs are so popular? They get people in the gutter either in a high so they don't care or a lot of money so that they're out of the gutter and controlling other people. Lawlessness in our business and our leaders comes from greed and apathy, not evolution or atheism. We can't put the blame where the blame is not due. Atheism and scientists are not to blame for all of us sinners sinning.

If he follows the mold that others of his type do, he hasn't convinced himself of anything besides that Benjamin Franklin is his new best friend and that green is his new favorite color.

Mainly because from what I've seen there is no middle ground, this question was brought up by be, and various members of worthy a while back, but the end result was, from an evolutionist perspective "science and God can't mix" from a creationist perspective, science is the study of Gods work" so the isn't too much of a middle ground, it's evolution, or creation. I disagree, Josh. It is possible for evolution (which applies to everything except man) and creationism (which applies only to man) to coexist. Science is fact and does not conflict with the word of God. After all, He is the creator; does it not follow that He created science as well? I fail to see why so many have trouble reconciling the two. Have you read some of the modern scientists work? like Dawkins for example, basicly he's in an all out war with faith. There is a science that is not science, that is when theorys are made without evidence and taken in as fact. Dawkins is one man, not a group of modern scientists. If you're going to say he's against faith, you had better be specific, and GIVE A SOURCE. If you have nothing to back up what you say, it's heresy. A theory is NOT A THEORY if nothing backs it up. I believe I've said this before. A hypothesis is a suggestion that could be a solution to a problem; a theory is a hypothesis with some degree of support. DON'T MESS THEM UP. That's one of the major reasons that many atheists disregard Christianity as unthinking and closed-minded, and it does no good to live up to stereotypes.

Well I think they do (when the bible is taken literally at least). Religion, among other things, attempts to explain the supernatural (creation, whitches etc). So does science, but it does it differently. Science takes the supernatural, examines it, experiments on it, and examines it some more. Then it comes up with the best natural explaination it can for the supernatural phenomenon. In the past this has caused conflicts such as the galileo one I mentioned. "there's going to be some fingerprints." Wait what? Did you just call god testable ? What are your beliefs by the way? Well, then it may come to the point where, if science and what IS around us says that the Bible can't be literal and true, we may have to question ourselves on whether WE are the ones who force it to be such. And no, I didn't say God was testable, but if He did what the Bible says He did (which I believe happened) then there will have to be some evidence of the event. God may be untestable, but creating an entire universe out of nothing isn't exactly subtle. As for my beliefs, I'm Christian. I believe in Scripture and it's inerrancy as far as inerrancy can go. If what IS in the world and what we discover goes against the Bible, then something's up, and I'm willing to include the interpretation (literal and otherwise) of the Bible in questioning.

It's very bad logic, and it really shouldn't have taken 7 pages for someone to notice. It just needs some clear thinking to sort out what works and what doesn't.

Psh, grass under my feet is for cows! Wrong. Science and faith shouldn't have ANY qualms with each other. 1. Science is about the natural world. God made that world, so inevitably, there's going to be some fingerprints. 2. God could have evolved us. It all depends on whether or not we take Genesis as a literal, play-by-play account of what happened. If the Creation story was not meant to be so, then evolution, and a God which caused such, are extremely viable and has nothing against our faith. If Creation IS a literal account, there will be evidence for it. 3. Evolution doesn't touch the origin of life, which is creation. Evolution is about the origin of species, which is another matter altogether. Davem, I love you. Well, not like that. But as a brother!

Someone's going to have to explain this to me... How exactly does evolution threaten Creation? How exactly does evolution in any way tell what made something out of nothing? Point made, point seen, I'm going to go back to lurking now.

This is scarily close to another quote I know... "Jesus is coming, look busy!" This is just a group of people who chose to mangle a verse so they could make a vague point. It's not really heart-breaking to me, just sad that they would lower themselves to another level of ignorance.

Why do we have "Faith vs. Science?" Why are we so intent on keeping the two apart?

The guy is nothing more than a massive con man. If he was Jesus incarnate, why would he waste his money on Rolexes and not give it to the poor?

0. If God is omnipotent, then He can do all that can be done. If there's a rock that God makes that He's not powerful enough to lift, then He's not omnipotent. Therefore, for God to be defined as omnipotent, making a rock so big that an omnipotent God can't lift it can't be done. It's a logical fallacy. 1. That's a very bad statement, for several reasons. For one, you're letting what God IS decide whether he exists or not. For two, you're saying that God killed Terry Schiavo. 2. Another bad statement. You're assuming that God claims to know the future or can change the future. God is omniscient; He knows all there is to know. If something hasn't happened, can it be known? I imagine that God is more like an expert chess player. He knows all the moves, and He's ready for anything. He's wise as wisdom itself, and can easily predict what men will do, but leaves it up to us to choose. 3. You're assuming quite a lot with this argument, and you know what they say about assuming... First off, you have to answer for the statement God made to Lot about there not being ANY good people in Sodom, and then you've got to find evidence of a world-wide flood, to prove that small children around the world were annihilated. All in all, that's just another bad statement. 4. Again, you're trying to eliminate God by what He IS. You can't define a person or being by their characteristics. It's like me saying, "My dog is black. Since your dog isn't black, it must not be a dog." It doesn't make sense, and it's just ignorant. 1. The unnecessary evil in the world is caused by men. 2. God charges all mankind to love one another. If we all did that, there wouldn't BE any evil. 3. God doesn't want suffering, and provided a way out of suffering into joy and peace. All in all, Questioner, I'm not impressed.

Being boring is the least of your worries. If you're boring, but remain true to Christ, there will be someone who hears you and grows from it. It's better to have one soul mature than to have 100 go off saying how great you were and not remember a word you said.

Lots of emotion, but some of the verses seem a bit awkward in how they sound. Don't let that get you down! It's hard to express meter through text, so it's probably just how I'm reading it. Many of the things I write tend to be the same way, so you should be fine.

Do you mean scientific evidence? Science can only prove, and even then, only support, what is testable. There is no known test for spirits. The answer, Josh, is no.

Hold up, somebody's going to have to explain this to me. How exactly did THIS get in Apologetics?