Misc All Things Religious

[Downeastnc]

Unfortunately you are right, many people who call themselves Christians view salvation merely as "fire insurance" just in case there truly is a heaven/hell and that's about as far as it goes for them. However, Scripture also makes it clear that true followers of Christ are called to build a genuine relationship with Him, live out biblical values and instead of fearing hell they are to realize the reality of it. The reason a Christian should desire Heaven is NOT to escape hell, as if Heaven is the only alternative, but instead because of their relationship with God they desire Heaven because God is there. There has been much preaching and what I call "shallow Christianity" today where people view Christianity simply as fire insurance and it just is not a biblical idea.

Regarding the question about God sending someone to hell even if they are good people.. the problem with that thought is that the Bible makes it clear that all of mankind is under the curse of sin and depraved and no one is "good." This is why 2 year old children are naturally prone to disobey and as a parent you have to teach them right/wrong. This is why you can have a Hitler or Stalin, wars, crime, etc all examples of the depravity of man. I am not a good person according to the Bible, I am capable of doing good things but that does not make me a good person.

The biblical picture is that we have all broken God's law in some way and God's justice requires a penalty for that sin, just as a criminal who has broken the law of society would need to receive some type of punishment from a judge for his actions. What God offers is for all of us who have broken His law to either receive complete forgiveness or we can continue breaking His law and one day face the consequences for this continued rebellion against God. He gives you, me, and everyone else the freedom to decide how we will respond instead of forcing us against our will.

That is why I know this is all BS, there is no god if there is a god it certainly isn't the Abrahamic one....God is suppose to be perfect yet he creates imperfect beings, then punishes them for being imperfect....unless you worship him and constantly asking him for forgiveness for making us imperfect. Oh and God wont prove he exist you just gotta have faith and believe if you fail to do those things then well off to hell with ya....do you really think a eternity in hell ( eternity for crying out loud ) is a "just" penalty for someone like me.....should I burn in hell forever, do my sins really equal that kind of punishment. Hell does any crime really deserve that kind of punishment.....well I can think of a few but really its ridiculous.

 

[snowlover91]

So if there was no penalty of hell would you go around murdering and raping people, steal from your neighbors etc? Is your belief in God the only thing that prevents you from doing all those things?

Also I am not messed up nor am I desperately in need of redemption....at all. I don't need to believe in a god to be a good person....I don't need the promise of everlasting life or the threat of eternity in hell to do the right thing.

Belief in God is not what prevents someone from doing those things. I think people oftentimes look at what they consider the "big sins" like murder, stealing, etc and say they are a good person if they don't do those things but there are plenty of other things that are sin in God's eyes. Things like lying, cheating, bitterness, refusing to forgive someone, lust, etc. are also all sins and when we take the time to examine ourselves we can all see that to some degree we are guilty of breaking God's law. A person's relationship with God motivates them to pursue growth in their personal life so that they will not give in to sin but live in such a way that their life is more in conformity and obedience to God's law. The problem with judging ourselves as a good person is our view of good may change, be based on the culture and can be completely different for each individual. We are often prone to overlook our own faults, I know I do many times, but when I examine myself by God's law I begin to see that I am truly not good like I used to think I was.

 

[snowlover91]

That is why I know this is all BS, there is no god if there is a god it certainly isn't the Abrahamic one....God is suppose to be perfect yet he creates imperfect beings, then punishes them for being imperfect....unless you worship him and constantly asking him for forgiveness for making us imperfect. Oh and God wont prove he exist you just gotta have faith and believe if you fail to do those things then well off to hell with ya....do you really think a eternity in hell ( eternity for crying out loud ) is a "just" penalty for someone like me.....should I burn in hell forever, do my sins really equal that kind of punishment. Hell does any crime really deserve that kind of punishment.....well I can think of a few but really its ridiculous.

Man was originally created perfect and given a choice to obey God or disobey Him. Man made the choice to disobey and as a result there was a punishment for breaking that law, as you would expect a just Judge to do when someone is guilty of breaking a law. I believe much of what you think about God vs how the Bible describes God are vastly different. I spent years answering and searching for the very questions you are asking and trying to properly understand the God of the Bible as well as other religions and how they view God while also examining the agnostic/atheist viewpoints as well.

I'm not sure what else a person wants God to do to prove He exists. He gave us the Bible and then also sent Jesus and people still didn't believe Him then just as they don't now. I'm convinced if God did in some way reveal Himself today that people would come up with all sorts of explanations to explain it away, such as hallucinations, drug use, aliens, illusions, etc just like they didn't accept Jesus 2,000 years ago. It's not up to me to judge what is a "just" penalty for someone like you or me because I am not God.

If you haven't already, I would encourage you to really search for these answers, try to understand both sides arguing for and against belief in God. Go in depth with the side that opposes what you view. I was raised in church my whole life but went through a time in my teen and college years really searching out the truth, looking at both sides and seeking in depth answers to questions raised by both Christian scholars and atheists/skeptics. The evidence and conclusion I reached ended up leading me to where I am today but it was very helpful for me to really search for answers. I still do it today, there are things I come across in the Bible that sometimes seem to contradict or don't make sense to me and that's where in depth study of what is being said helps me tremendously instead of just making an assumption and saying the Bible can't be true because I don't understand something. I feel like this is what many people run across as an obstacle when trying to understand the Bible and instead of trying to really find good answers/explanations they simply conclude if they don't understand it then it must not be true. Ultimately for me it was a search for truth, whatever direction that led, and I am firmly convinced now after spending a great amount of time and study.

 

[RBR71]

I'm not going to jump in this debate, I'm really not smart enough and am just too simple minded.... seriously. I'm a walk by faith Christian and that's just not gonna fly for scientific proof and I get it. Personally I think the most devastating and horrific part of hell is eternal separation from God and knowing it. That emotional turmoil may be as intense as any other physical pain hell may have to offer.

My heart truly breaks for those who reject God's gift of salvation through his Son, Jesus Christ. That hurts, while I may not agree with everyone on everything (far from it lol), I have no desire to see anyone eternally separated from God. Debates are great and we should try to win souls to Christ, but there also comes a time where we plant that seed and then pray.

 

[snowlover91]

I posted a link to this last night but wanted to post a few excerpts as well. This is an interview done with Ian Hutchinson who happens to be a professor in nuclear science and engineering at MIT. He is also an expert in the field of plasma physics and he brings up a few good points on the front of "can science prove God exists."

"Science can’t explain everything because there are lots of things which don’t possess the characteristics upon which science insists in order to pursue its methods. Science is based on the possibility of obtaining reproducible measurements or observations. But there are many things that we humans think and know that aren’t capable of being explored by reproducible experiments. Take human history, for example. The events of history are basically unique events, so you can’t do reproducible experiments to establish, for example, that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon or was assassinated on the steps on the Roman senate.

So, there are realities that science cannot explore and cannot therefore explain. But I don’t think those necessarily lead you to belief in the supernatural. I’m not claiming that God’s action is proved by things that we can’t explain in science. I think it’s actually rather the opposite. I think God’s action in the world is revealed in what we discover about the creation through science. I don’t subscribe to a “God of the gaps” attitude. I find God’s actions and his steadfast love in the things we can explain through science, as well as the things that science really can’t explain.

Having religious faith isn’t disreputable or anti-intellectual simply because it doesn’t depend on scientific proofs. Faith depends on other kinds of evidences and arguments. So I regard the Christian faith as being perfectly reasonable, in that it is an opinion and a commitment with evidence in God’s favor. But most of that evidence is not scientific evidence, because science isn’t really competent to study God. God doesn’t make himself available to us in the way that nature is available to us for repeatable experimentation.

We can take seriously what science is showing us about the natural world. We can rejoice at it. We can find God in it, as our forebears in both science and the Christian faith thought, that God has expressed himself both in the book of his word, which is the Bible, but also in the book of his works, which is nature. Both speak of him and of his creative and redeeming power." Source

 

[Fountainguy97]

That is why I know this is all BS, there is no god if there is a god it certainly isn't the Abrahamic one....God is suppose to be perfect yet he creates imperfect beings, then punishes them for being imperfect....unless you worship him and constantly asking him for forgiveness for making us imperfect. Oh and God wont prove he exist you just gotta have faith and believe if you fail to do those things then well off to hell with ya....do you really think a eternity in hell ( eternity for crying out loud ) is a "just" penalty for someone like me.....should I burn in hell forever, do my sins really equal that kind of punishment. Hell does any crime really deserve that kind of punishment.....well I can think of a few but really its ridiculous.

1st Bold: completely wrong. God created a perfect world. Including two humans who were perfect. Would never die. Etc. It was Lucifer who deceived them. They disobeyed the one rule God had given them and that is the fall of man. That is when the world became imperfect. This is the first example of the free will of man. (Free will to choose and make decisions. Ie. not be robots)


2nd bold: exactly! It takes Faith. Just like you have to have faith in atheism! As you cannot prove without a doubt that there is no God. That means you have faith in Your belief. Or evolution. Or anything that can’t be 100% proven. It is a faith based Salvation. So yes it’s completely logical for God to require faith in Himself.


3rd Bold:
Romans 3:23 KJV
[23] For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Romans 6:23 KJV
[23] For the wages of sin is death (hell), but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.


For ALL have sinned. That includes you. Your good works have absolutely nothing to do with your imperfection. You have sinned. Unfortunately that penalty is hell.

But there is good news. Jesus Christ paid that penalty when He died on the cross! You just have to realize that you are a sinner. And that no matter how much good you do it will not change the fact that you have sinned. It will not cancel out. Hell is the penalty. But realize there is hope! Trusting Christ as your Savior will give you the gift of Salvation and an eternity in Heaven.


Romans 10:9-10 KJV
[9] That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. [10] For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.



Anyone with serious questions give me a call. As a minister in a church I feel the need to throw this out. I will not argue with you but I’m for sure here to help! (252) 814-4565

 

[Downeastnc]

Man was originally created perfect and given a choice to obey God or disobey Him. Man made the choice to disobey and as a result there was a punishment for breaking that law, as you would expect a just Judge to do when someone is guilty of breaking a law. I believe much of what you think about God vs how the Bible describes God are vastly different. I spent years answering and searching for the very questions you are asking and trying to properly understand the God of the Bible as well as other religions and how they view God while also examining the agnostic/atheist viewpoints as well.

I'm not sure what else a person wants God to do to prove He exists. He gave us the Bible and then also sent Jesus and people still didn't believe Him then just as they don't now. I'm convinced if God did in some way reveal Himself today that people would come up with all sorts of explanations to explain it away, such as hallucinations, drug use, aliens, illusions, etc just like they didn't accept Jesus 2,000 years ago. It's not up to me to judge what is a "just" penalty for someone like you or me because I am not God.

If you haven't already, I would encourage you to really search for these answers, try to understand both sides arguing for and against belief in God. Go in depth with the side that opposes what you view. I was raised in church my whole life but went through a time in my teen and college years really searching out the truth, looking at both sides and seeking in depth answers to questions raised by both Christian scholars and atheists/skeptics. The evidence and conclusion I reached ended up leading me to where I am today but it was very helpful for me to really search for answers. I still do it today, there are things I come across in the Bible that sometimes seem to contradict or don't make sense to me and that's where in depth study of what is being said helps me tremendously instead of just making an assumption and saying the Bible can't be true because I don't understand something. I feel like this is what many people run across as an obstacle when trying to understand the Bible and instead of trying to really find good answers/explanations they simply conclude if they don't understand it then it must not be true. Ultimately for me it was a search for truth, whatever direction that led, and I am firmly convinced now after spending a great amount of time and study.

I have my answers I found them 30 years ago.....I am as sure there is no god as you are there is, at least in the sense of a Christian god. I am 99.9% atheist with that last little bit begrudgingly acknowledging that there is a slim chance that there is some kind of omnipresent creator that created the universe etc.....but if such a thing exist it is not any of the gods worshiped by humans today in fact it wouldn't even care if we exist or worshipped it and its existence would not mean anything spiritually for us.

Christianity and most other major religions are a self fulfilling belief, the only source for their dogma is the manuscripts their followers use....the fact there are 1,000 of different religions all over the planet shows that the concept of religion is common among humans because it is a invention of humans, thus the wide variety and dogmas based on the evolution of the religion which is based on numerous factors, ironically they all believe their particular religion is the "one true" religion.

People are born into religions, it is society/familial based, you are a Christian because your parents/family are Christians and their family before them etc....if you were born in India you would be a Hindu, if you were born in Saudi Arabia you would be a Muslim....if you were like my son and born to atheist parents then you would be a atheist...people are literally indoctrinated into their religion, you are a Christian not by choice but by circumstance.

 

[Bham 99]

I have my answers I found them 30 years ago.....I am as sure there is no god as you are there is, at least in the sense of a Christian god. I am 99.9% atheist with that last little bit begrudgingly acknowledging that there is a slim chance that there is some kind of omnipresent creator that created the universe etc.....but if such a thing exist it is not any of the gods worshiped by humans today in fact it wouldn't even care if we exist or worshipped it and its existence would not mean anything spiritually for us.

Christianity and most other major religions are a self fulfilling belief, the only source for their dogma is the manuscripts their followers use....the fact there are 1,000 of different religions all over the planet shows that the concept of religion is common among humans because it is a invention of humans, thus the wide variety and dogmas based on the evolution of the religion which is based on numerous factors, ironically they all believe their particular religion is the "one true" religion.

People are born into religions, it is society/familial based, you are a Christian because your parents/family are Christians and their family before them etc....if you were born in India you would be a Hindu, if you were born in Saudi Arabia you would be a Muslim....if you were like my son and born to atheist parents then you would be a atheist...people are literally indoctrinated into their religion, you are a Christian not by choice but by circumstance.

I'm a Christian because I choose to be, because of the evidence of my life being nothing short of miraculous.

 

[Downeastnc]

I'm a Christian because I choose to be, because of the evidence of my life being nothing short of miraculous.

Are your parents and family Christian? That last bit is the self fulfilling part I was talking about....

 

[Bham 99]

Are your parents and family Christian?

They are. I've seen first-hand Christianity is truth.

 

[snowlover91]

I have my answers I found them 30 years ago.....I am as sure there is no god as you are there is, at least in the sense of a Christian god. I am 99.9% atheist with that last little bit begrudgingly acknowledging that there is a slim chance that there is some kind of omnipresent creator that created the universe etc.....but if such a thing exist it is not any of the gods worshiped by humans today in fact it wouldn't even care if we exist or worshipped it and its existence would not mean anything spiritually for us.

Christianity and most other major religions are a self fulfilling belief, the only source for their dogma is the manuscripts their followers use....the fact there are 1,000 of different religions all over the planet shows that the concept of religion is common among humans because it is a invention of humans, thus the wide variety and dogmas based on the evolution of the religion which is based on numerous factors, ironically they all believe their particular religion is the "one true" religion.

People are born into religions, it is society/familial based, you are a Christian because your parents/family are Christians and their family before them etc....if you were born in India you would be a Hindu, if you were born in Saudi Arabia you would be a Muslim....if you were like my son and born to atheist parents then you would be a atheist...people are literally indoctrinated into their religion, you are a Christian not by choice but by circumstance.

No I can tell you I am a Christian because I carefully studied not only Christianity but other religions and atheism/agnostic views and when weighing all the evidence, claims, etc by various religions and atheists I found the claims of Christianity and the evidence for it as the most compelling. People can also go contrary to what they are raised as, I've known people raised Christian who went into other religions or atheism and vice versa as well. There are a number of scientists who are well respected within their fields who testify that what they discover in science is evidence for a Creator vs random chaos. Read the MIT professor's quotes in my previous post to get an idea of how Christian scientists see God and why.

 

[Downeastnc]

They are. I've seen first-hand Christianity is truth.

So ever since you can remember you have been taught that the Christianity is the one true religion right. You entire life is built around that belief. So you attribute things to those beliefs....

 

[Bham 99]

So ever since you can remember you have been taught that the Christianity is the one true religion right. You entire life is built around that belief. So you attribute things to those beliefs....

Nope. I've had personal evidence in my life.

 

[Downeastnc]

No I can tell you I am a Christian because I carefully studied not only Christianity but other religions and atheism/agnostic views and when weighing all the evidence, claims, etc by various religions and atheists I found the claims of Christianity and the evidence for it as the most compelling. People can also go contrary to what they are raised as, I've known people raised Christian who went into other religions or atheism and vice versa as well. There are a number of scientists who are well respected within their fields who testify that what they discover in science is evidence for a Creator vs random chaos. Read the MIT professor's quotes in my previous post to get an idea of how Christian scientists see God and why.

I am sure you did, but your base belief structure is strongly Christian, and its hard to buck that deeply rooted belief structure I know because I did it. Sure some people can go contrary to what they raised but the vast majority of those people are people going atheist contrary to how they were raised.

 

[Downeastnc]

Nope. I've had personal evidence in my life.

I am sure you believe that whatever those experiences were they were proof that god is real, the reason you believe that however is that your were taught to believe that. If you had been born to nomadic Bedouin's your beliefs would be different and the experiences you had would be seen in a different light and have different meanings. That's why religion is self fulfilling you find what you are looking for because you already believe it is there. You have these beliefs because you were taught them since birth.

 

[RBR71]

I have my answers I found them 30 years ago.....I am as sure there is no god as you are there is, at least in the sense of a Christian god. I am 99.9% atheist with that last little bit begrudgingly acknowledging that there is a slim chance that there is some kind of omnipresent creator that created the universe etc.....but if such a thing exist it is not any of the gods worshiped by humans today in fact it wouldn't even care if we exist or worshipped it and its existence would not mean anything spiritually for us.

Christianity and most other major religions are a self fulfilling belief, the only source for their dogma is the manuscripts their followers use....the fact there are 1,000 of different religions all over the planet shows that the concept of religion is common among humans because it is a invention of humans, thus the wide variety and dogmas based on the evolution of the religion which is based on numerous factors, ironically they all believe their particular religion is the "one true" religion.

People are born into religions, it is society/familial based, you are a Christian because your parents/family are Christians and their family before them etc....if you were born in India you would be a Hindu, if you were born in Saudi Arabia you would be a Muslim....if you were like my son and born to atheist parents then you would be a atheist...people are literally indoctrinated into their religion, you are a Christian not by choice but by circumstance.

That's simply not true.... will the majority, probably, but there are thousands from those countries that have chosen Christianity. There are underground Christian churches all over the world who face persecution by death every single day and they are full, full of locals who have found Christ and left their home/family/country religion. In fact, some of those Churches are probably more on fire for God then the churches here but that has nothing to do with this discussion.

 

[snowlover91]

I am sure you did, but your base belief structure is strongly Christian, and its hard to buck that deeply rooted belief structure I know because I did it. Sure some people can go contrary to what they raised but the vast majority of those people are people going atheist contrary to how they were raised.

I just don't think that's a good argument to use. Sure some people may be Christians because of how they are raised but I see plenty who are the exact opposite of how they are raised. Most of the time it's when they are in college or their 20s/30s that they begin to really form their belief that will stick with them for life. I've also known a good number of people with 0 church background who when presented with the evidence went from being an atheist to a Christian... it just isn't a good argument to use for why someone is what they are because there are so many other factors at work in each person's life and ultimately that person has to decide for themselves what they will accept and reject.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on the number of scientists who say that the creation and field of work they are in gives evidence to God, including ones who were atheists with little to no church background and converted to Christianity because of what they saw. Why do you reject their assertion of evidence for God in creation?

 

[Downeastnc]

I just don't think that's a good argument to use. Sure some people may be Christians because of how they are raised but I see plenty who are the exact opposite of how they are raised. Most of the time it's when they are in college or their 20s/30s that they begin to really form their belief that will stick with them for life. I've also known a good number of people with 0 church background who when presented with the evidence went from being an atheist to a Christian... it just isn't a good argument to use for why someone is what they are because there are so many other factors at work in each person's life and ultimately that person has to decide for themselves what they will accept and reject.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on the number of scientists who say that the creation and field of work they are in gives evidence to God, including ones who were atheists and converted to Christianity because of what they saw. Why do you reject their assertion of evidence for God in creation?

I reject it because there is no god....I have seen videos like those numerous times, being smart doesn't mean you cant or even shouldn't believe in god. I understand why people need a god in their life, I know plenty of people who are intellectually brilliant that also believe in god

However as a rule strictly believing the bible and science don't mix, it takes a lot of cognitive dissonance to accept stuff from the bible as factually true and also believe in science.....when I look at science I don't see god, I see proof there is no god. Stuff like the literal dozens of different species of Hominids.....none of that stuff really jives with the bible....there have been dozens of intelligent species of hominids over the last 2 million years, some even were as smart as homo sapiens....heck Neanderthals were dominate for a long time this is excepted science, but Christians will say they were just deformed modern humans or other such excuses when the science and DNA show that is patently false. Its stuff like that that bothers me, when proof of things that contradict the bible come along rather than embracing it and accepting it a lot of Christian scientist try to explain it away or change it to make it fit their pre conceived beliefs.

 

[EastAtlwx]

I fall more into line with agnostic thinking. I'm open to the possibility of a god existing but i would say more so to some higher fundamental truth (like a god; but far from the one of Abrahamic faiths). I despise Christians who think their god is without a doubt 100% truth which i find an issue with because its intellectually dishonest.

 

[snowlover91]

I reject it because there is no god....I have seen videos like those numerous times, being smart doesn't mean you cant or even shouldn't believe in god. I understand why people need a god in their life, I know plenty of people who are intellectually brilliant that also believe in god

However as a rule strictly believing the bible and science don't mix, it takes a lot of cognitive dissonance to accept stuff from the bible as factually true and also believe in science.....when I look at science I don't see god, I see proof there is no god. Stuff like the literal dozens of different species of Hominids.....none of that stuff really jives with the bible....there have been dozens of intelligent species of hominids over the last 2 million years, some even were as smart as homo sapiens....heck Neanderthals were dominate for a long time this is excepted science, but Christians will say they were just deformed modern humans or other such excuses when the science and DNA show that is patently false. Its stuff like that that bothers me, when proof of things that contradict the bible come along rather than embracing it and accepting it a lot of Christian scientist try to explain it away or change it to make it fit their pre conceived beliefs.

I would encourage you regarding things like the Neanderthals you mentioned to read some resources like this one from a scientific perspective and see what you think. Regardless, I think we will just have to agree to disagree on things.

 

[NCSNOW]

Romans Chapter 1:18-32.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

 

[Downeastnc]

I would encourage you regarding things like the Neanderthals you mentioned to read some resources like this one from a scientific perspective and see what you think. Regardless, I think we will just have to agree to disagree on things.

This is a prime example of what I said, this is bad science, this is twisting the science to fit your beliefs and that is not how science is done. This person already does not believe that Neanderthals could be a separate species as it does not fit into his religious views ....so he finds a way to fit it in. Nothing he does is accepted as fact by mainstream science.....the only people in science that debate the validity of whether Neanderthals were a separate species are creationist who have to have them be deformed humans in order to fit their religious dogma.

This paragraph sums up pretty well why this guy found the results he did even though they differ from consensus....the highlighted part below is just false, the fossil and Hominid family tree is ripe with variation and dead end branches of dozens of extinct separate species that are related to us.

"The fact that most paleoanthropologists believe that the Neandertals were a separate species and that most of them also believe that the Neandertals were able to share genes with modern humans represents a basic inconsistency in the interpretation of the human fossil and genetic evidence. The biblical teaching that humans were created in the image of God and reproduce “after their kind” fits well with the fossil record and with the idea that Neandertals and modern humans are members of the same biblical “kind.”"

Neanderthal DNA is different enough we can actually map it out in our modern genome , as is Denisovan DNA which is another separate group that lived during this time....the science showing that these distinct separate branches of the Hominid tree existed at the same time is set science we know these things to be true. There are at least 15 separate species of "humans" that have existed in the last 2 million years.

 

[snowlover91]

This is a prime example of what I said, this is bad science, this is twisting the science to fit your beliefs and that is not how science is done. This person already does not believe that Neanderthals couldn't be a separate species as it does not fit into his religious views ....so he finds a way to fit it in. Nothing he does is accepted as fact by mainstream science.....the only people in science that debate the validity of whether Neanderthals were a separate species are creationist who have to have them be deformed humans in order to fit their religious dogma.

I don't think you read the entire article, both part 1 and part 2, judging by your response. I'm sure you are familiar with the results uncovered in 2010 by the Max Planck institute, right? I'll post the relevant info below, keep in mind this study was conducted by evolutionary anthropologists who were shocked by their findings... and yet they align with the article I posted that was written 4 years BEFORE this discovery by the Max Planck institute. It seems this "not mainstream creationist" was actually on the right track...

"A comprehensive and technically sophisticated study published in the May 7 issue of Science, “A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome,” by Max Planck Institute evolutionary anthropologists Richard E. Green, Svante Pääbo and 54 of their colleagues, demonstrates that “between 1 and 4% of the genomes of people in Eurasia are derived from Neandertals” and that “Neandertals are on average closer to individuals in Eurasia than to individuals in Africa.” In fact, the authors note, “a striking observation is that Neandertals are as closely related to a Chinese and Papuan individual as to a French individual.... Thus, the gene flow between Neandertals and modern humans that we detect most likely occurred before the divergence of Europeans, East Asians, and Papuans.” In other words, our anatomically hirsute cousins are actually our genetic brothers. The Neandertal species did not go extinct, because it was never a separate species; instead population pockets of Neandertals died out around 30,000 years ago, whereas other Neandertal populations survived through interbreeding with their modern human brothers and sisters, who live on to this day."

Regarding "mainstream science" claim, the "mainstream" evolutionists NEVER expected to find Neanderthal DNA in humans... and they were completely wrong. Using the "mainstream science" argument is a poor one because the mainstream science in areas of research like this often evolve/change as new data and techniques are uncovered.

"Liberty University cell biologist (and creationist) David DeWitt called the research an “amazing feat” of science that supports creationist expectations. “Finding Neanderthal DNA in humans was not expected by evolutionists, but it was predicted from a creation standpoint because we have said all along that Neanderthals were fully human: descendants of Adam and Eve, just like us,” he told News to Note.

DeWitt also pointed to research on mitochondrial DNA several years earlier that had boldly claimed that Neanderthals were not our ancestors, based on the genetic results at that time. “We really have to be careful with scientific conclusions and data,” DeWitt explained. “Now, with a more thorough analysis, we have the exact opposite conclusions.” Source

 

[WEATHERBOYROY]

This is a prime example of what I said, this is bad science, this is twisting the science to fit your beliefs and that is not how science is done. This person already does not believe that Neanderthals couldn't be a separate species as it does not fit into his religious views ....so he finds a way to fit it in. Nothing he does is accepted as fact by mainstream science.....the only people in science that debate the validity of whether Neanderthals were a separate species are creationist who have to have them be deformed humans in order to fit their religious dogma.

When you are speaking of " mainstream science", I want you to re-think what you say. Is "mainstream science" really science by definition?
according to Webster's dictionary ..."knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method" . Evolution is impossible scientifically. The first and second laws of thermodynamics ...1) In short- energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed only change forms. 2) the law of entropy- states that the total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease over time. Therefor the beginning of all things must be Supernatural and the idea that things got more complex and more organized naturally without an outside force is impossible. Folks that believe in evolution must have blind faith because not one thing works or even makes common sense with the concept.

 

[WEATHERBOYROY]

Neanderthal DNA is different enough we can actually map it out in our modern genome , as is Denisovan DNA which is another separate group that lived during this time....the science showing that these distinct separate branches of the Hominid tree existed at the same time is set science we know these things to be true. There are at least 15 separate species of "humans" that have existed in the last 2 million years.
[/QUOTE]


what flawed dating method did you use to attain this? Do you kids not ever question anything..you just believe everything someone tells you?
Just because someone gets a degree, or call themselves a scientist doesn't make them credible!

 

[Downeastnc]

Neanderthal DNA is different enough we can actually map it out in our modern genome , as is Denisovan DNA which is another separate group that lived during this time....the science showing that these distinct separate branches of the Hominid tree existed at the same time is set science we know these things to be true. There are at least 15 separate species of "humans" that have existed in the last 2 million years.

what flawed dating method did you use to attain this? Do you kids not ever question anything..you just believe everything someone tells you?
[/QUOTE]

It's accepted science.....the "homo erectus" evolved around 2 million years ago, "homo antecessor" was 800k-1.2 mya I guess if it will make you feel better add a give or take a 100k yrs in there....

 

[WEATHERBOYROY]

what flawed dating method did you use to attain this? Do you kids not ever question anything..you just believe everything someone tells you?

It's accepted science.....the "homo erectus" evolved around 2 million years ago, "homo antecessor" was 800k-1.2 mya I guess if it will make you feel better add a give or take a 100k yrs in there....
[/QUOTE]


Accepted on what basis? Just accepted because.....???? someone there? time machine ???? Like I said you kids will believe anything! LOL! are you using a dating method only derived by theory? What makes it right?

 

[Downeastnc]

It's accepted science.....the "homo erectus" evolved around 2 million years ago, "homo antecessor" was 800k-1.2 mya I guess if it will make you feel better add a give or take a 100k yrs in there....

Accepted on what basis? Just accepted because.....???? someone there? time machine ???? Like I said you kids will believe anything!
[/QUOTE]

Kid? I am 47 years old, fossil dating methods of which there are many is accepted because it has been tested over and over again and had the scientific method applied to it, and its constantly being improved and refined allowing better and more precise dating.

 

[WEATHERBOYROY]

Accepted on what basis? Just accepted because.....???? someone there? time machine ???? Like I said you kids will believe anything!

Kid? I am 47 years old, fossil dating methods of which there are many is accepted because it has been tested over and over again and had the scientific method applied to it, and its constantly being improved and refined allowing better and more precise dating.
[/QUOTE]


All right big boy, what fossil dating method are you speaking of? Radioactive and stratigraphic dating methods have been proven inaccurate and useless. And don't even try to go carbon dating, it's only theoretically possible up to 10,000 years with organic material.

 

[Downeastnc]

Kid? I am 47 years old, fossil dating methods of which there are many is accepted because it has been tested over and over again and had the scientific method applied to it, and its constantly being improved and refined allowing better and more precise dating.

All right big boy, what fossil dating method are you speaking of?
[/QUOTE]

Meh I am not interested in debating this with you, you can take your "kid" and "big boy" and shove them right up your....well this is a religious thread so I will leave you with this if you actually interested in this....

Radiometric dating - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Fossil - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[WEATHERBOYROY]

All right big boy, what fossil dating method are you speaking of?

Meh I am not interested in debating this with you, you can take your "kid" and "big boy" and shove them right up your....well this is a religious thread so I will leave you with this if you actually interested in this....

I am very familiar with those methods.
Radioactive and stratigraphic dating methods have been proven inaccurate and useless. And don't even try to go carbon dating, it's only theoretically possible up to 10,000 years with organic material.

I know that you are very intelligent, and you are sincere. But you can't believe things just because! You are 47 years old. There are kids that depend on you and people your age demanding factual evidence.

 

[Downeastnc]

Meh I am not interested in debating this with you, you can take your "kid" and "big boy" and shove them right up your....well this is a religious thread so I will leave you with this if you actually interested in this....


Radioactive and stratigraphic dating methods have been proven inaccurate and useless. And don't even try to go carbon dating, it's only theoretically possible up to 10,000 years with organic material.

I know that you are very intelligent, and you are sincere. But you can't believe things just because! You are 47 years old. There are kids that depend on you and people your age demanding factual evidence.

I don't believe them just because.....how do you not understand that these dating systems are all accepted dating systems by scientist everywhere, what system should they use?

 

[WEATHERBOYROY]

I don't believe then just because.....how do you not understand that these dating systems are all accepted dating systems by the scientist everywhere, what system should they use?

unfortunately, there is no way to be certain of age accuracy beyond known historic time. We tend to accept many things as fact because someone who has been elevated to a position of authority says so. We have to remember and see that there are reasons to state things as true and factual for personal gain. Though there is some real science to some dating methods,. You've got to remember that these men that produce them are going into their methods with pre-conceived results in mind. They are evolutionist, therefor they will not entertain the possibility of anything else. Kind of like "rose colored glasses"All they do has to fall into that box. Evolution is a religious belief.

 

[Downeastnc]

unfortunately, there is no way to be certain of age accuracy beyond known historic time. We tend to accept many things as fact because someone who has been elevated to a position of authority says so. We have to remember and see that there are reasons to state things as true and factual for personal gain. Though there is some real science to some dating methods,. You've got to remember that these men that produce them are going into their methods with pre-conceived results in mind. They are evolutionist, therefor they will not entertain the possibility of anything else. Kind of like "rose colored glasses"All they do has to fall into that box.

The science is there to get within a specific time frame....for example using certain U-235 methods on older fossils we know the margin of error is 20 million yrs either way so we know something is 500 million yrs old give or take 20 million years either way.... so for sure the fossil in question is 480-520 million years old.

 

[WEATHERBOYROY]

The science is there to get within a specific time frame....for example using certain U-235 methods on older fossils we know the margin of error is 20 million yrs either way so we know something is 500 million yrs old give or take 20 million years either way.... so for sure the fossil in question is 480-520 million years old.

Again , for u235 dating to be theoretically possible , the sample must contain u235 . What standard of proof can be produced. There is no hard evidence and no way to obtain hard evidence to substantiate accuracy. It is just theory...

 

[WEATHERBOYROY]

Again , for u235 dating to be theoretically possible , the sample must contain u235 . What standard of proof can be produced. There is no hard evidence and no way to obtain hard evidence to substantiate accuracy. It is just theory...

Since there is no way to prove a dating method as accurate, let's look at some things that we can prove in the fossil record. have you ever wondered why the fossil record doesn't have species in the process of evolving? Doesn't reasoning tell you there should be more fossils in an evolutionary stage than in a completed stage?

 

[snowlover91]

The science is there to get within a specific time frame....for example using certain U-235 methods on older fossils we know the margin of error is 20 million yrs either way so we know something is 500 million yrs old give or take 20 million years either way.... so for sure the fossil in question is 480-520 million years old.

There has been some research in recent years which suggests that various dating methods may overestimate the length of time. I know one by NC State was published in 2017. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170131104433.htm

Also this article goes extremely in depth about some flaws and how the process works. Much of it is way over my head though.

 

[Deleted member 1449]

I have a nephew who is an atheist who says, “ I can’t believe in a dead man coming to life.”

This reasoning fascinates me because to believe in evolution (as he does) is to believe that life came to be from non living material. Literally something dead brought forth life.

What’s further fascinating is that science and the Bible share much common ground, especially in the realm of origins. The Bible and science agree there was nothing, then suddenly the universe came to be. They both agree that life—as we know it—came from the “dust of the earth” and given enough time, all of life returns to the dust of the earth.

And then there is DNA—which, in my mind, requires a great deal of faith to believe that it arrived through natural means only.

I could go on. But for now I just want to say that Christians have many good reasons to believe in the God of the Bible. And to do so does not require rejecting science.

 

[WEATHERBOYROY]

Here is my beef with these so called scientist and people who trust the education being presented today. What they teach as factual is not basesd on factual evidence but theory. To believe what is being taught, you must have FAITH. The belief system(religion) that controls our educational system is atheism. If that religion is allowed in our educational system, why not Christianity. There is far more historical evidence and proof than the Pseudo science we see today that doesn't work. If it did, the new GFS wouldn't be a piece of scrap.

 

[Downeastnc]

I have a nephew who is an atheist who says, “ I can’t believe in a dead man coming to life.”

This reasoning fascinates me because to believe in evolution (as he does) is to believe that life came to be from non living material. Literally something dead brought forth life.

What’s further fascinating is that science and the Bible share much common ground, especially in the realm of origins. The Bible and science agree there was nothing, then suddenly the universe came to be. They both agree that life—as we know it—came from the “dust of the earth” and given enough time, all of life returns to the dust of the earth.

And then there is DNA—which, in my mind, requires a great deal of faith to believe that it arrived through natural means only.

I could go on. But for now I just want to say that Christians have many good reasons to believe in the God of the Bible. And to do so does not require rejecting science.

A point of fact to the beginning of the universe, science does not state there was nothing before the big bang, there are lots of theories out there about what state the universe was in prior to the big bang...but nothing is a commonly accepted one