Hey BIC,
Juz a slight sidetrack. Do u believe in once saved always saved? I cun remember if I asked u this before.
Originally posted by despondent:Hey BIC,
Juz a slight sidetrack. Do u believe in once saved always saved? I cun remember if I asked u this before.
Yes you did, and I answered you before. I do not believe in OSAS. At the very least I consider the case for conditional salvation stronger than OSAS view. But lest there be any misunderstanding, I am not saying that our salvation is conditional on good works.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:... as it will create pain in family or in society. In the modern days, we want peace. I do not worship Charles Darwin. His book 'origin of species' contains some mistakes due to backward scientitic understanding at that time. I do not ...
BIC, your reply to me is missing. I read it other day and had no time to reply.
Now it is gone ?
ok, let me recall what you asked.
1) ?Asked me to give an example of the evidence of evolution I believe in ? " The fossil remains of animals and plants found in sedimentary rock provide a convincing time record of events happened in the long history of earth. This help to trace the evolutionary path of animals and plants. This provide strong evident of evolution.
Regarding genetic changes of living organism. I cannot provide any good description from top of my head. I think internet provide a good source of info.
2. forgot your question.
3. forgot your question.
4. forgot your question.
5. forgot your question.
6. "Do I know the TRUTH exist ?" Every religions has its TRUTH. They all require me to think of some supernatural power being. I don't see or feel any supernatural power since my birth. How to make myself to think in that manner. In short, no TRUTH exist.
Originally posted by laffin123:BIC, your reply to me is missing. I read it other day and had no time to reply.
Now it is gone ?
Nope. Last I checked it is still there. My reply to you is dated 16 April 5:31pm.
BIC,
Regarding finding our other half, what's ur take? Do u hold the belief that there is someone "meant for you"?
Originally posted by laffin123:ok, let me recall what you asked.
1) ?Asked me to give an example of the evidence of evolution I believe in ? " The fossil remains of animals and plants found in sedimentary rock provide a convincing time record of events happened in the long history of earth. This help to trace the evolutionary path of animals and plants. This provide strong evident of evolution.
Regarding genetic changes of living organism. I cannot provide any good description from top of my head. I think internet provide a good source of info.
2. forgot your question.
3. forgot your question.
4. forgot your question.
5. forgot your question.
6. "Do I know the TRUTH exist ?" Every religions has its TRUTH. They all require me to think of some supernatural power being. I don't see or feel any supernatural power since my birth. How to make myself to think in that manner. In short, no TRUTH exist.
1. I asked you for what you think is the best evidence for evolution. You said fossils. Here's a revealing quote for you from a noted evolutionist,
"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation" - Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831, see also
But what are fossils? They are the petrified remains of billions of dead things found in rock layers found all over the world. That's the DATA which both you and I have and observe. But you have chosen to INTERPRET the data through evolutionary lens. You BELIEVE that these fossils were laid down by sedimentary rock and slowly formed over millions of years. But I interpret them through Biblical lens and BELIEVE that they were laid down and buried rapidly by a global flood over a matter of months. You BELIEVE that fossils must take millions of years to form. But given the right conditions fossils do not require vast amounts of time. And do you know that fossilisation is actually a very rare occurence because organic material tends to decompose? You need rapid burial to quickly lock out the air and other things that might hinder fossilisation. Given the global dispersion of the fossil record, the global flood that the Bible talks about presents a very good explanation for the formation of the fossil record.
Regarding genetic changes, firstly, evolutionists CANNOT account for the existence of genetic information itself, DNA. Secondly, DNA is specified complexity, it carries information. Who arranged the information in the genetic code? Thirdly, if evolution is true then it requires an INCREASE in new-never-before-existing genetic information. But natural selection and mutation does not do that at all, they only work on pre-existing information.
2. Truth is truth, whether we are talking about religious truth or not. So, please clarify, are you saying that there is no such thing as truth? Bear in mind that saying "there is no such things as truth" assumes that the statement is true.
Originally posted by despondent:BIC,
Regarding finding our other half, what's ur take? Do u hold the belief that there is someone "meant for you"?
Wow, this is really off topic!
Personally I hold the view that there are some people that's not meant for you. I mean, as Christians we are commanded not to be unequally yoked. So if someone you fancies is not a Christian, then she's certainly not meant for you, at least while she is still not a believer. In any case, the Bible does not teach that each man has a woman made and meant for him. Only Adam had this privilege!
Tats all I need to nor from I for this. Actually I kinda suspect the doctrines Christians hold in general come in a "package". Eg. Believers in predestination will follow up wif the belief in OSAS, pre-tribulation n that there is a "meant to be" someone. On the contrary, Christians who believe salvation can be lost often dun believe in predestination, take partial or post tribulation stand n dun believe there's someone "meant to be" for them. I dunno if u see the "packaging".
Originally posted by despondent:Tats all I need to nor from I for this. Actually I kinda suspect the doctrines Christians hold in general come in a "package". Eg. Believers in predestination will follow up wif the belief in OSAS, pre-tribulation n that there is a "meant to be" someone. On the contrary, Christians who believe salvation can be lost often dun believe in predestination, take partial or post tribulation stand n dun believe there's someone "meant to be" for them. I dunno if u see the "packaging".
I think most people simply take the theological packaging offered by the pastor every weekend. But I do agree with you that there are some doctrines which are normally pegged to some other doctrines, they go hand in hand rather well.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:1. I asked you for what you think is the best evidence for evolution. You said fossils. Here's a revealing quote for you from a noted evolutionist,
"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation" - Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831, see also
But what are fossils? They are the petrified remains of billions of dead things found in rock layers found all over the world. That's the DATA which both you and I have and observe. But you have chosen to INTERPRET the data through evolutionary lens. You BELIEVE that these fossils were laid down by sedimentary rock and slowly formed over millions of years. But I interpret them through Biblical lens and BELIEVE that they were laid down and buried rapidly by a global flood over a matter of months. You BELIEVE that fossils must take millions of years to form. But given the right conditions fossils do not require vast amounts of time. And do you know that fossilisation is actually a very rare occurence because organic material tends to decompose? You need rapid burial to quickly lock out the air and other things that might hinder fossilisation. Given the global dispersion of the fossil record, the global flood that the Bible talks about presents a very good explanation for the formation of the fossil record.
Regarding genetic changes, firstly, evolutionists CANNOT account for the existence of genetic information itself, DNA. Secondly, DNA is specified complexity, it carries information. Who arranged the information in the genetic code? Thirdly, if evolution is true then it requires an INCREASE in new-never-before-existing genetic information. But natural selection and mutation does not do that at all, they only work on pre-existing information.
2. Truth is truth, whether we are talking about religious truth or not. So, please clarify, are you saying that there is no such thing as truth? Bear in mind that saying "there is no such things as truth" assumes that the statement is true.
1. Yes. Yes I said fossils is the best evidence for evolution, in my own opinion, and thanks for telling me your views on fossils. It is a time record of what happened in the past, which was X million years long. Let me re-write in clearer statements about our beliefs.
Yours: You believe that fossils were laid down and buried rapidly by a global flood over a matter of months.
Mine: I believe that fossils were laid down by sedimentary rock and slowly formed over millions of years.
You pointed out that organic materials tends to decompose. That's true. Flesh easily decompose. But why fossilizing is an rare occurance? After organic materials decompose, we will have the skeleton structures left. Since they were trapped in the sedimentary layers, they were under pressure and becomes fossilized. Where does your context of "rareness" applies here?
You quoted an evolutionist Mark Ridley. Thank for his input to the scientific community. His input is as valuable as someone proclaiming evolution is a fact. One can never believe in one man's word. Analyze his finding, look at his methodology, what is his research sample size, any assumption made ? One thing is science will never become a fact based on one man work. Contrast that with a bible.
You said you also need rapid burial to quickly lock out air and other things.
May I know how does the a major flood provides rapid locking out of air and other things. Shouldn't be the water washing out stuff? I did see any coherency in your belief unless through your bibilcal lens, which is making people more confused than convinced.
Evolution has produced the most diversity and complexity of genetic information. Natural selection and mutation produce more information and arrangement of the genetic information. Why is my understanding so different from yours ? If you still believe in natural selection and mutation play with pre-existing information, you are half way right. They produce the never ending arrangement of new genetic code. Recall the onset of HIV virus in this world. Recall the bird flu virus, we have H1N1, then later mutates to a strong strain of H1N3 through natural selection. H1N5 comes later. Let me quote a example closer to us. The anti-botic medicine we took is also gradually changing to a stronger dose and newer medicinal power. Your doctor never tell you this ? This is in response to the growing new strain of virus in our body through the time that able to outsmart the drugs. When last year's flu vaccination is no longer effective? We need a newer jab of upgraded flu vaccination to handle this years' occurance of different virus strain.
The above are examples of gene mutation and natural selection. Of course you can say that how can the evolutionists take this as evidence of evolution. This cannot demostrate that the creation of primitive organism and evolve to what we are today. I would tell you to be patience for X millions years and observe. Out of the zillion chemical reactions take place during the young earth, there is one successful reaction that forms the basic building block of living organism. Be patience and observe for some X millions years, bigger and more functional organism forms.
Then you may ask. Where does the moral comes from ? I am most dumdfounded by this. We atheist suppress moral judgement given by god ? I say moral comes from our mind. Full stop. We can think, just like we can make up a god call steve. If moral comes from god, why can a snake in adam's bull story had evil moral, but now snake is deemed an animal and can't have moral now. Some religion will punish anyone who leave the religion. On what moral is this ? What good will religion be if it cannot allow someone who will be happy to go elsewhere.
In my opinion, religion is a good place if you need spirital support. Full stop. Better forget about the creation crap, it is more confusing than convicing.
2. Let me repeat. There is no truth in the context of any religious ideas or whatsoever. Let's not play any word game. No truth.
He forgot the stratification of fossils not just millions of years ago, but under different layers laid down over millions of years.
Fossils range in age from thousands to billions of years old..
karl marx said, religion is an opiate is really true.
you cant convince a fanatic otherwise. they are like zombies fed with an opiate. they are totally brainwashed.
The christian God heals.
So do other Gods.
The christian God saves.
So do other Gods.
The christian God answer prayers.
So do other Gods.
No difference.
THe only common thing is the human mind here.
Originally posted by laffin123:...for the formation of the fossil record. Regarding genetic changes, firstly, evolutionists CANNOT account for the existence of genetic...us. The anti-botic medicine we took is also gradually changing to a stronger dose and newer medicinal power. Your...
Were you trying to say something?
Evolutionists are quick to use many unsupportable arguments to promote their beliefs. The most-often-used example is that of antibiotic resistance. They argue (quite vociferously at times) that one must understand that bacteria will evolve to a state of resistance to a particular antibiotic if that antibiotic is overused. Quite overlooked by the evolutionist are the multiple mechanisms of antibiotic resistance, none of which require or involve so-called evolutionary changes, which would add new information into the genome.
For instance, there are examples of antibiotic resistance found in bacteria recovered from the frozen corpses of people who died before the use of antibiotics. Much antibiotic resistance results from natural selection of populations of already-resistant bacteria. Antibiotics kill susceptible organisms, and resistant organisms survive.
Another mechanism of resistance is what occurs when a mutation takes place that might, for example, cause a defect in the bacteria’s ability to transport the antibiotic into the cell, thus rendering the bacteria resistant to that particular antibiotic. Another mutation might change a binding site used by the antibiotic within the cell, thus rendering it unable to kill the cell. What is never brought up, however, is the fact that any mutation will result in a loss of information due to the change in genetic material. Even in the very unusual occurrence of a so-called “beneficial” mutation, there is an ultimate loss of genetic information available to succeeding generations.
Recently, similar arguments have been put forth to explain resistance in certain strains of the influenza virus. These arguments fail for the same reason. This loss of information is inconsistent with a biological model that proposes to explain how organisms become more complex over time. Loss of information is the opposite of molecules-to-man evolution, and fits well into a creationist model of biology. Thus, antibiotic resistance is not a valid argument for the Darwinian evolutionist.
Originally posted by alize:He forgot the stratification of fossils not just millions of years ago, but under different layers laid down over millions of years.
Fossils range in age from thousands to billions of years old..
How did you know they were laid down over millions of years? Did anyone observe that happening?
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:karl marx said, religion is an opiate is really true.
you cant convince a fanatic otherwise. they are like zombies fed with an opiate. they are totally brainwashed.
Atheists are also hard at work trying to brain-wash people into their atheistic-nihilistic worldview. It is also difficult trying to convince fanatical atheists.
Originally posted by Tcmc:The christian God heals.
So do other Gods.
The christian God saves.
So do other Gods.
The christian God answer prayers.
So do other Gods.
No difference.
THe only common thing is the human mind here.
The only thing I see is your superficial comparison between Christianity and other religions.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:The only thing I see is your superficial comparison between Christianity and other religions.
I told you before. Every religion has their Unique Selling Point. But Unique Selling Points don't make a religion more real or better. It just depends on what the customer wants.
It's like shampoo. All shampoos have unique selling points. Not necessary that one is better than the other. If one is better than the other, it also depends on how the USER sees it.
Originally posted by Tcmc:
I told you before. Every religion has their Unique Selling Point. But Unique Selling Points don't make a religion more real or better. It just depends on what the customer wants.
It's like shampoo. All shampoos have unique selling points. Not necessary that one is better than the other. If one is better than the other, it also depends on how the USER sees it.
I also told you before, it's about truth.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:I also told you before, it's about truth.
Ya, to SHampoo A user, the truth is Shampoo A is the best.
To Shampoo B user, the truth is shampoo B is the best.
To one who has used BOTH shampoos, he might say both serve the same purpose, just different unique points.
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Ya, to SHampoo A user, the truth is Shampoo A is the best.
To Shampoo B user, the truth is shampoo B is the best.To one who has used BOTH shampoos, he might say both serve the same purpose, just different unique points.
You have confused OBJECTIVE truth with subjective preferences and tastes.
You need a clear, logical mind to deal with these issues. I'll be happy to guide you on this.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Were you trying to say something?
Evolutionists are quick to use many unsupportable arguments to promote their beliefs. The most-often-used example is that of antibiotic resistance. They argue (quite vociferously at times) that one must understand that bacteria will evolve to a state of resistance to a particular antibiotic if that antibiotic is overused. Quite overlooked by the evolutionist are the multiple mechanisms of antibiotic resistance, none of which require or involve so-called evolutionary changes, which would add new information into the genome.
For instance, there are examples of antibiotic resistance found in bacteria recovered from the frozen corpses of people who died before the use of antibiotics. Much antibiotic resistance results from natural selection of populations of already-resistant bacteria. Antibiotics kill susceptible organisms, and resistant organisms survive.
Another mechanism of resistance is what occurs when a mutation takes place that might, for example, cause a defect in the bacteria’s ability to transport the antibiotic into the cell, thus rendering the bacteria resistant to that particular antibiotic. Another mutation might change a binding site used by the antibiotic within the cell, thus rendering it unable to kill the cell. What is never brought up, however, is the fact that any mutation will result in a loss of information due to the change in genetic material. Even in the very unusual occurrence of a so-called “beneficial” mutation, there is an ultimate loss of genetic information available to succeeding generations.
Recently, similar arguments have been put forth to explain resistance in certain strains of the influenza virus. These arguments fail for the same reason. This loss of information is inconsistent with a biological model that proposes to explain how organisms become more complex over time. Loss of information is the opposite of molecules-to-man evolution, and fits well into a creationist model of biology. Thus, antibiotic resistance is not a valid argument for the Darwinian evolutionist.
BIC, you are confusing yourself.
being resistant is the state of enlightenment, i.e. gain of information.
Originally posted by laffin123:BIC, you are confusing yourself.
being resistant is the state of enlightenment, i.e. gain of information.
Huh? What are you talking about? Elaborate please.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:You have confused OBJECTIVE truth with subjective preferences and tastes.
You need a clear, logical mind to deal with these issues. I'll be happy to guide you on this.
good lord, you have the cheek to accuse others of this and that, and yet you cant see the same for yourself? you should have clear and coherent mind in the first place.
look yourself in the mirror first, lest you are the first to cast the stone at others.