Is Christianity logical?

[Truith]

Truith

alright now it's my turn to question your beliefs. The simple cell is considered far more complex than even our most modern machines. The scientist Dr. Francis Crick who co-descovered DNA, examined a single simple cell and found that the chance of that cell evolving in the time the earth had existed, (even if one assumed that the earth was four and a half billion years old). his conclusion was panspermia, the belief that every thing on earth was seaded by an ancient alien race. This is a theory often taught in colleges. the only problem with it is that in the end you have to ask what aliens seeded those aliens and so on and so on.

hehe I forgot to put that he concluded that the chance of a cell evolveing in that time was 0%. very sorry I'm very tire because i'm on 3rd shift (12am-8am) and doing over time.  

[Truith]

alright finishing my last post. another scientist by the name of Sir Fred Hoyle working with another world famous mathematician, Chandra Wickramasinghe decided to go even further. He started with the supposed age of the universe- 15 to 20 billion years, give or take a billion. The number they came up with was ten to the 40,000th power. a noted Swiss mathematitian, Lecomte duNouy sdaid that any number in wich the probabilities were greater than 10 to the fiftieth power would simply never happen( told you the number would pop up again). This number comes from the number of electrons (the thing we have the most of.) in the univers being 10 to the 52 power. The way I see it the only answer, statistically, to existence is creation. Oh thank God for those books. I really missed them.  

[Deppfan]

I'm not great at math, so yeah. But, to the main point...

Evolution is simply random mutation. It does not take place at a specified rate. If the environment changes, the beings that have the traits suitable survive and thrive. Simply the act of reproduction creates mutations within the DNA of the subsequent offspring. Beings that thrive reproduce more and more, creating even more mutations. Thus, the rate of evolution and cellular mutation increases, throwing out the theories you presented.

As far as life coming from an alien planet or other source? It's quite possible. But it still doesn't disprove evolution. Whether those original cells got here from an alien source, or originated here on Earth, I believe they still were not created by an omnipotent being, but were the result of the forces of physics.  

[Truith]

Deppfan Teague

I'm not great at math, so yeah. But, to the main point...

Evolution is simply random mutation. It does not take place at a specified rate. If the environment changes, the beings that have the traits suitable survive and thrive. Simply the act of reproduction creates mutations within the DNA of the subsequent offspring. Beings that thrive reproduce more and more, creating even more mutations. Thus, the rate of evolution and cellular mutation increases, throwing out the theories you presented.

As far as life coming from an alien planet or other source? It's quite possible. But it still doesn't disprove evolution. Whether those original cells got here from an alien source, or originated here on Earth, I believe they still were not created by an omnipotent being, but were the result of the forces of physics.

I don't think you quite understand. I'm talking about a single simple cell. The things we have thousands of coming into existence by CHANCE, that doesn't involve reproduction, the idea is more like spontanious generation. Ah thats another thing your belief is basically just that, spontanious generation. evolutionist believe that life came from a random force causing none living things to become living. oh also I'm going to my grandparents for christmas so I won't be able to continue this for a good week at least. So see ya.  

[Deppfan]

Truith

Deppfan Teague

I'm not great at math, so yeah. But, to the main point...

Evolution is simply random mutation. It does not take place at a specified rate. If the environment changes, the beings that have the traits suitable survive and thrive. Simply the act of reproduction creates mutations within the DNA of the subsequent offspring. Beings that thrive reproduce more and more, creating even more mutations. Thus, the rate of evolution and cellular mutation increases, throwing out the theories you presented.

As far as life coming from an alien planet or other source? It's quite possible. But it still doesn't disprove evolution. Whether those original cells got here from an alien source, or originated here on Earth, I believe they still were not created by an omnipotent being, but were the result of the forces of physics.

I don't think you quite understand. I'm talking about a single simple cell. The things we have thousands of coming into existence by CHANCE, that doesn't involve reproduction, the idea is more like spontanious generation. Ah thats another thing your belief is basically just that, spontanious generation. evolutionist believe that life came from a random force causing none living things to become living. oh also I'm going to my grandparents for christmas so I won't be able to continue this for a good week at least. So see ya.

Well, with this one, I'm going to have to answer with "I don't know." Because, that's the unfortunate thing... science is not at the point yet to fully explain or understand beyond that.

But actually, cells are made up of many other smaller parts, so they don't just poof into existance by chance. They come from chemicals arranged in particular patterns, forming the DNA. These chemicals are made from elements, which are in turn just different numbers and bonds of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Beyond that is the theoretical of quarks and anti-matter. But, basically, when down to that level, we can't fully explain it yet either.  

[Mad Haru]

And of course, Christians have their whole theory laid out in front of them, but they can't prove it any better than we can evolution.
Also, I'd like to invoke Sherlock Holmes.
'It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has evidence. It biases the judgement.'
Since Christianity had their theory before the proof, most of what they use to prove their beliefs are probably biased.  

[lnvictus]

Truith

In response to the comment posted by Brett Krueger. I'm sorry but I laughed so hard when I read the part about Roman Chatholics killing Christ. They were Romans who believed in Roman gods. Christianity is based ON Christ and surfaced as a religion AFTER Christs death and resurection. also your right on the acount that many people who call themselves Christians do wrong things. But just calling yourself a Christian doesn't make you one. There are plently of people who call themselves Christians but do not follow the very ideas they claim to uphold. Oh and one more thing God's judgment is not necissarily something that comes on earth, in fact usually it doesn't. Also little known fact Hitler persecuted Christians as well as Jews, gays, mentaly disabled people, and anyone who stood against him.

Haha yeah, I wasn't thinking. My baddddd. Anyways, Hitler didn't persecute Christians for BEING Christian, only if they stood in his path to world domination did he have them killed, but there were no specially designated "Christian work camps" or "Christian Concentration camps".
And to the statement about God's judgment, not to sound disrespectful, but how could you POSSIBLY know that there is even any judgment at all. Did you die and then somehow become reincarnated and remember "heaven"? If so, that would be the most amazing discovery of human existence.
I understand that the bible is your key source of proof, it's all YOU need to believe in God, Jesus, etc. But to A LOT of people, seeing is believing.
I don't understand how a book could possibly prove the existence of a higher being, but then again, some Christians can't see how it ISN'T enough for me. The have the ability to put seemingly blind faith into a certain idea. I'm just one of those people that can't do that, I will never change unless "God" himself/herself/itself appears to me and proves me wrong that I'm not just dreaming or on something.  

[lnvictus]

Harujiro no Yorozuya

And of course, Christians have their whole theory laid out in front of them, but they can't prove it any better than we can evolution.
Also, I'd like to invoke Sherlock Holmes.
'It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has evidence. It biases the judgement.'
Since Christianity had their theory before the proof, most of what they use to prove their beliefs are probably biased.

What do you mean PROVE evolution? How do you explain Lucy? As well as all of the other conclusive evidence scientists have SUPPORTING evolution. There is no scientific proof that anything in the bible ACTUALLY happened. We have no found the tomb of Jesus Christ, though we have scoured every possible place that clues have led us to, we still find nothing. Explain that with you bible Triuth (not meant in a disrespectful tone, simply a challenging one. :])  

[Mad Haru]

Brett Krueger

Harujiro no Yorozuya

And of course, Christians have their whole theory laid out in front of them, but they can't prove it any better than we can evolution.
Also, I'd like to invoke Sherlock Holmes.
'It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has evidence. It biases the judgement.'
Since Christianity had their theory before the proof, most of what they use to prove their beliefs are probably biased.

What do you mean PROVE evolution? How do you explain Lucy? As well as all of the other conclusive evidence scientists have SUPPORTING evolution. There is no scientific proof that anything in the bible ACTUALLY happened. We have no found the tomb of Jesus Christ, though we have scoured every possible place that clues have led us to, we still find nothing. Explain that with you bible Triuth (not meant in a disrespectful tone, simply a challenging one. :])

I'm sorry, I meant, 'Prove Evolution in a manner that will get Young-Earth Creationists to shut up about it.'  

[Deppfan]

Harujiro no Yorozuya

Brett Krueger

Harujiro no Yorozuya

And of course, Christians have their whole theory laid out in front of them, but they can't prove it any better than we can evolution.
Also, I'd like to invoke Sherlock Holmes.
'It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has evidence. It biases the judgement.'
Since Christianity had their theory before the proof, most of what they use to prove their beliefs are probably biased.

What do you mean PROVE evolution? How do you explain Lucy? As well as all of the other conclusive evidence scientists have SUPPORTING evolution. There is no scientific proof that anything in the bible ACTUALLY happened. We have no found the tomb of Jesus Christ, though we have scoured every possible place that clues have led us to, we still find nothing. Explain that with you bible Triuth (not meant in a disrespectful tone, simply a challenging one. :])

I'm sorry, I meant, 'Prove Evolution in a manner that will get Young-Earth Creationists to shut up about it.'

Sadly, once someone believes something that strongly, there's no convincing them otherwise.  

[lnvictus]

I'm not one of those young people that is completely firm in their beliefs, I just recently became naturalist/agnostic and could probably be pretty easily swayed back into Christianity if something significant enough happened to prove God to me. The only reason I'm not a Christian is because I can't have blind faith and, the age old question, if God loved us, why would he take our family members away? Or give us the ability to love at all if we're just going to lose them?

Love is just one of a long list of strong chemical attractions built up from the pheromones in ones blood/breath/skin etc.

I'm not close-minded to the idea of god, but I think that if he does exist that God is simply the gate keeper of Heaven, such as Satan is the keeper of Hell. Why would God be the almighty creator but his "brother" not?

Riddle me this

If there is a God, and he is as forgiving as the bible and Christians claim he is, then he is not going to submit anyone to eternal death in the Hell for NOT believing, I could understand Hitler, or Stalin being sent to Hell, but they massacred MILLIONS of people, let me rephrase that, they HAD millions of people massacred, they didn't have to guts to do it themselves which shows cowardice.

So, in closing, God won't sentence and innocent soul naive enough to not believe, to Hell, will he?

Or did I misinterpret the Bible when I still went to church?  

[Deppfan]

Brett Krueger

I'm not one of those young people that is completely firm in their beliefs, I just recently became naturalist/agnostic and could probably be pretty easily swayed back into Christianity if something significant enough happened to prove God to me. The only reason I'm not a Christian is because I can't have blind faith and, the age old question, if God loved us, why would he take our family members away? Or give us the ability to love at all if we're just going to lose them?

Love is just one of a long list of strong chemical attractions built up from the pheromones in ones blood/breath/skin etc.

I'm not close-minded to the idea of god, but I think that if he does exist that God is simply the gate keeper of Heaven, such as Satan is the keeper of Hell. Why would God be the almighty creator but his "brother" not?

Riddle me this

If there is a God, and he is as forgiving as the bible and Christians claim he is, then he is not going to submit anyone to eternal death in the Hell for NOT believing, I could understand Hitler, or Stalin being sent to Hell, but they massacred MILLIONS of people, let me rephrase that, they HAD millions of people massacred, they didn't have to guts to do it themselves which shows cowardice.

So, in closing, God won't sentence and innocent soul naive enough to not believe, to Hell, will he?

Or did I misinterpret the Bible when I still went to church?

Brother? I hope you don't mean in any literal sense.

But anyways, I agree on what you said about taking people away, and punishments. Even if I could believe that there was some omnipotent being that created everything, I would still turn my back on that being for things like that.  

[Elastic Yellow]

I have a question. Didn't God "create everything," meaning he created Satan/Hell? Did he only create these for his own selfish wants of eternally damning non-believers? If this is true, it brings up the question doesn't God love everyone? Why would he WANT to eternally damn them??

When I look at this, all I can think is: "Christianity is full of hypocracy." :]

 

[Yuuki Aoyagi]

-sigh, this could take a while.
so much naivety, it pains me to read all this.

First of all -and though i don't know how we got on this subject- Evolution is a Dis-proven theory.
Christianity aside for a bit?

firstly:Evolution is still a Dis-Proven theory

10 ways Darwin got it wrong.

#1 The warm pond theory

The scientific evidence indicates that life did not and could not somehow arise spontaneously from some warm little pond, as Darwin thought. What we find from the evidence around us and from the fossil record is that, as the law of biogenesis states, life can only arise from life.


#2 The supposed simplicity of the cell.

......So it turns out that cells are far more complex and sophisticated than Darwin could have conceived of. How did mere chance produce this, when even human planning and engineering cannot? In fact, no laboratory has come close to replicating even a single human hair!


#3 His ideas about information inside the cell.

Because he believed in the simplicity of the information of the cell, he came up with a theory called "pangenesis," where huge variations simply popped out of cells at random—something that was later proven to be entirely false.
Everything we know about DNA indicates that it programs a species to remain within the limits of its own general type. Genetic changes that do occur are typically small and inconsequential, while large mutations, rather than producing improved and novel designs, are overwhelmingly harmful to the organism's survival.


#4 His expectation of intermediate fossils

During his life, Charles Darwin was puzzled over the fossil record. For it to back his theory, the evidence should show a fine gradation between the different animal species and have millions of intermediate links.

He stated it this way: "The number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory [of evolution] be true, such have lived upon the earth" (The Origin of Species,1958, Mentor edition, p. 289).

Yet faced with the evidence, he admitted: "The distinctiveness of specific forms, and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty... Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection to my theory" (p. 287).


#5 His failure to see the limits of variation of species

Darwin got the idea about natural selection in part from observing artificial selection. For instance, he noted the way pigeon breeders came up with a great variety of pigeons. Yet we should remember, they are still all classified as pigeons!

He thought that from this variety, given enough time, pigeons could eventually evolve into some other type of birds, such as eagles or vultures, and gradually, even to other creatures such as mammalian bats.

No one seriously disputes the notion of "change over time" in biology—heredity sees to that. We vary from our parents and grandparents—but that is not what the theory of evolution is all about. It is really an attempt to explain how microorganisms, insects, fish, birds, tigers, bears and even human beings actually became what they presently are through the passage of time.

Darwinian evolution—what is taught in the schools—is about macroevolution, or changes beyond the limits of the species kind to create another distinct species. It consists of three suppositions: 1) all living things descend from a common ancestor; 2) the principal mechanisms for the changes are natural selection and mutation; and 3) these are unguided, natural processes with no intelligence at work behind them.

But have we seen either in present life forms or in the fossil record that creatures are slowly changing and mutating from one kind to another? Never.


#6 His discounting of the Cambrian Explosion.

Darwin was aware of what is called the "Cambrian explosion"—fossils of a bewildering variety of complex life-forms appearing suddenly, without predecessors, in the same low level of the fossil record. This obviously did not fit his evolutionary model of simple-to-complex life.

Instead of a few related organisms appearing early in the fossil record as he hoped, there was an explosion of life—where the various main body types (called phyla) of living creatures seem to arise around the same time—in fact, 32 of the 33 phyla that we see today. Comparing this development to the progress of man's inventions, it would be as if a toaster, a washing machine, a refrigerator, an air conditioner and a car all of a sudden came on the scene with no mechanical devices preceding them.

Regarding the Cambrian explosion, Time magazine notes: "Creatures with teeth and tentacles and claws and jaws materialized with the suddenness of apparitions. In a burst of creativity like nothing before or since, nature appears to have sketched out the blueprints for virtually the whole of the animal kingdom. This explosion of biological diversity is described by scientists as biology's Big Bang" (Madeline Nash, "When Life Exploded," Dec. 4, 1995, p. 6 cool .

This "Big Bang" of completely different creatures deep in the fossil record posed an enormous problem that Darwin had to admit undermined his theory.

He wrote: "To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer... The difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian is very great . . . The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained" (The Origin of Species, pp. 309-310).



#7 His theory of homology

In his studies, Darwin noticed that different types of creatures shared some common features, such as the five fingers of a human hand and the five digits of a bat's wing or of a dolphin's fin. He postulated that this similarity in different species, which he called "homology," was evidence for a common ancestry.

Yet this argument is based on an analogy that's quite weak since the fossil record shows no gradual evolution of these limbs from one species to another. There is, however, another and simpler way to explain these common features. Instead of having a common ancestor, these similar features could simply be the result of a common design.

We see this common design in how man builds things. We construct a car, a cart and a vacuum cleaner with four wheels, but this doesn't mean they have a common ancestor —merely a common design. Four wheels happen to give more stability and strength than three wheels and can better distribute the weight on top. We can deduce that a wise designer would have used this type of model of four legs to give stability and strength to many of the creatures that were made, instead of using three legs.

Really, does it make more sense that a designer used these same patterns because they worked so well, or that blind chance in natural selection and mutations just happened to come up with the optimal design after so many trial-and-error attempts? If the latter was the case, where is the evidence of the many failed models that should have ended up in the scrap heap of the fossil record, as Darwin predicted? No such evidence has been found.

Indeed, when creatures that are supposedly far removed from one another on the evolutionary tree share common advanced characteristics, evolutionists maintain that these characteristics evolved separately. But what are the odds of the same complex characteristic evolving by chance multiple times? Again, common design is clearly a far more logical explanation.


#8 His theory of human beings evolving from apes.

The similarity (between man and chimps) is now down to about 93 percent, according to more recent studies—results that curiously have not made many headlines. Stephan Anitei, science editor for Softpedia, writes: "Well, the new study concludes that the total DNA variation between humans and chimpanzees is rather 6-7%. There are obvious similarities between chimpanzees and humans, but also high differences in body structure, brain, intellect, and behavior, etc." ("How Much DNA Do We Share With Chimps?" Softpedia, Nov. 20, 2006, p. 1).

Again, the question has to be asked: Is the similarity between chimpanzees and men due to a common ancestor or to a common Designer? If a common ancestor, why are human beings so drastically different now from this ancestor while chimpanzees have remained much the same? The fact is, we are not seeing any evolution presently going on in either chimpanzees or human beings.


#9 His theory of the tree of life.

The only drawing Darwin had in his book The Origin of Species is that of the supposed "tree of life." It pictures the imaginary transformation of a common ancestor (at the root level) into the different species we see today (at the twig level). Yet the drawing is actually based on slight variations within a species after many generations, and then he adds some suppositions.

Again Darwin went well beyond the evidence. He took limited evidence about adaptations and extrapolated it to the idea that a species or genus (group of interbreeding species) can transform into a completely different one—all based on speculation. He cleverly said, "I see no reason to limit the process of modification, as now explained, to the formulation of genera [plural of genus] alone" (p. 121). He had to say this since no more direct evidence was forthcoming.

As Jonathan Wells notes: "The most fundamental problem of evolution, the origin of species, remains unsolved. Despite centuries of artificial breeding and decades of laboratory experiments, no one has ever observed speciation (the evolution of a species into another species) through variation and selection.
As Jonathan Wells notes: "The most fundamental problem of evolution, the origin of species, remains unsolved. Despite centuries of artificial breeding and decades of laboratory experiments, no one has ever observed speciation (the evolution of a species into another species) through variation and selection. What Darwin claimed is true for all species has not been demonstrated for even one species" (The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, 2006, p. 64).

So instead of a "tree of life" that begins with one or a few common ancestors and then branches out, there is actually an inverted and quite divided "tree of life," where the branches of life were very diverse and numerous at the beginning. Through extinction and sudden appearances, we have fewer kinds of life-forms today than in the past.

"Of all the icons of evolution," adds Dr. Wells, "the tree of life is the most pervasive because descent from a common ancestor is the foundation of Darwin's theory...Yet Darwin knew—and scientists have recently confirmed—that the early fossil record turns the evolutionary tree of life upside down. Ten years ago it was hoped that molecular evidence might save the tree, but recent discoveries have dashed that hope. Although you would not learn it from reading biology textbooks, Darwin's tree of life has been uprooted" (ibid., p. 51).


#10 His rejection of biblical creation by God

Charles Darwin was a man of his times. The 19th century saw many major social upheavals—political, philosophical, economic and religious—and Darwin was deeply shaped by them.

Some 11 years after writing The Origin of Species, he candidly admitted his two main purposes for writing it: "I may be permitted to say, as some excuse, that I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change...

"Some of those who admit the principle of evolution, but reject natural selection, seem to forget, when criticizing my book, that I had the above two objects in view; hence if I have erred in giving to natural selection great power, which I am very far from admitting, or in having exaggerated its power, which is in itself probable, I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations" (The Descent of Man, 1871, p. 92).

Notice that the first reason for writing his book was religious—for he sought "to overthrow the dogma of separate creations." In other words, he had no room for a religious version of origins involving the Creator God of the Bible. He promoted the idea that the world of matter and energy, mainly through natural selection and variation, might well account for all life we see around us—a philosophy of science known as scientific materialism.

Instead he pigeonholed creationists as having to believe in a recent creation and in "fixed" species confined to specific geographical regions. This was a straw man he set up so he could then bash it time after time in his writings. For him, evolution was "scientific" and was to be viewed with an open mind—but within a closed materialistic system—minimizing or eliminating any role for intelligent design or God.

Yet instead of the data accumulated during the next 150 years pointing toward blind and random causes of nature doing the creating, we now see it, based on molecular, chemical, biological and astronomical evidence, pointing to a supremely intelligent Designer of all.

Darwin's bicentennial has arrived but, as Phillip Johnson predicts, Darwin's ideas will eventually end up in the trash heap of history. Johnson concludes: "Every history of the twentieth century has three thinkers as preeminent in influence: Darwin, Marx, and Freud... Yet Marx and Freud have fallen... I am convinced that Darwin is next on the block. His fall will be the mightiest of the three" (Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, 1997, p. 113).


Secondly: Darwin Admitted he was Wrong
....more than once, twice that i know of, once in a letter to his friend Lyle, and once on his death bed, though the later isn't proven, obviously.

On this matter, I am not certain, but it's late, I'm tired, and, frankly, i don't feel like finding evidence.
I'll do more research on the matter, but if you want the truth, don't look for opinions, look for facts.  

[lnvictus]

Clearly if he was simply "looking for truth" he wouldn't have posted in a thread completely dedicated to intelligent discussion. He WANTS to know people's opinions, that's why it's here.

You're not even putting forth your own opinion, you're just blindly stating facts that you found on the internet at some point to make yourself look "inept" and adding a few emoticons to make people think it's your work.

So calm down, it's discussion, nobody here is truly "naive" and even if we were, what gives YOU the right to diagnose this? Are you a psychiatrist? can you truly tell if someone is naive without reading more than a couple of their posts on what is basically just a giant forum?

Thank you