Christianity--Q&A

[LordoftheMorning]

Sir O that wasn't really Ad Hominem man. I was pointing out that Darwin didn't fully understand the biological systems he was dealing with. Ad Hominem would be "DARWIN IS THE DEVIL!! DONT BELIEVE HIM!1!!eleven!one!"

Can someone please tell me how an eye would evolve without a designer? It's true I am just looking at the finished product, but the thing is.... there's no way for anything but the finished product to be useful.

There was a whole lot of garbage

Good thing we're not cars

thrown at me by multiple people, but I'll sort that out later. Really dude it was an allegory.

If anyone is wanting me to bend over backwards and read those links they had better summarize them or at least say something more than "wrong". This isn't a "read up and fill in the blanks yourself"(I seem to recall seeing this said by the other side of this debate in the fallacies thread, and so help me I don't feel like reading a bunch of links), this is "you try to convince me and visa versa". I'll probably get around to reading them anyway. =/

EDIT: and make sure they actually talk about the quote they responded to. -.-

 

[Eor]

Can someone please tell me how an eye would evolve without a designer? It's true I am just looking at the finished product, but the thing is.... there's no way for anything but the finished product to be useful.

I already did. Multiple times.

There was a whole lot of garbage thrown at me by multiple people, but I'll sort that out later. Really dude it was an allegory.

You were not using it as an allegory. You were using it as "cars can't be made by themselves therefore humans can't".

If anyone is wanting me to bend over backwards and read those links they had better summarize them or at least say something more than "wrong". This isn't a "read up and fill in the blanks yourself", this is "you try to convince me and visa versa".[/COLOR]

Yes, it must be so hard for you to read scientific evidence. Those links all show exactly, scientifically, how an eye develops. I didn't post the "relevant" parts because the entire article is relevant. If I just took the basic concepts and gave them to you, you wouldn't care because the entire scientific backing of it are gone.

But in short, since you don't want to read the links, I'll give a summary. You are wrong, it is scientifically proven how an eye can develop in parts, and each of those parts have been found. If you want the evidence or more detail, read the links

 

[Ryusuta]

Sir O that wasn't really Ad Hominem man. I was pointing out that Darwin didn't fully understand the biological systems he was dealing with. Ad Hominem would be "DARWIN IS THE DEVIL!! DONT BELIEVE HIM!1!!eleven!one!"

No, ad hominem is exactly what it is. You are making the implication that the argument is wrong because of where it's coming from (read: "argument against the man"). You are talking about Darwin himself, NOT anything he's saying. It is the 100% dictionary definition of ad hominem.

Can someone please tell me how an eye would evolve without a designer? It's true I am just looking at the finished product, but the thing is.... there's no way for anything but the finished product to be useful.

Don't tell that to any living species without - or with rudimentary - eyesight.

If anyone is wanting me to bend over backwards and read those links they had better summarize them or at least say something more than "wrong". This isn't a "read up and fill in the blanks yourself", this is "you try to convince me and visa versa".

Let's be honest about this, man. You're not deciding not to read this stuff because there's too much of it. No one is buying that, so don't sell it. The only reason I feel you would seriously want a "tl;dr" version of the argument is because the full version is too difficult to argue against and you don't want to change your own perspective to incorporate it. Arguing against a sound bite is easy. Considering another perspective is not.

 

[Dash_Fox]

I hate idiots who say "Evolution is a theory and not a fact" because they have no idea what a scientific theory is. Poverbs is a perfect example on this since he has not even the slightest clue what science is all about (probably his religion has something to do with this).

Theory = Series of facts that explain a certain phenomenon
Fact = Evidence that supports a theory
Hypothesis = A type of guess based on obervation

It's not that hard to know. This is why we can't have nice things in America because 70% of the people in America don't know little things like this. This is one reason why America is a god awful country. Hell, 50% of American people doesn't know how long it takes the Earth to ROTATE around the SUN. America has the largest amounts of idiots in a new age country today.

Question: Why are religious people ignorant towards homosexuals?

 

[Eor]

I'd edit my post, but might as well post again.

That is not a "fill in the blank" debate. If I was doing that, I'd be linking to someone else s argument and be like "see read this". Instead, I'm linking to scientific document, not opinion, which makes a clear difference.

 

[SuperBowser]

So... I know this topic has horribly broken down and I'm out of turn but I have a genuine question.

For entry into heaven, Christians tend to make a big deal about accepting Jesus Christ and that there is only one God. Therefore certain religions such as Hinduism could never go to heaven because they reject Jesus and worship multiple Gods (this is not true but...). How is it possible for one God when there's the Holy Trinity?

Why did god invent the appendix and gallbladder?

To be fair, a gallbladder has a use.


When I pig out on chocolate cake...

 

[Eor]

Well generally, the Trinity is seem as the different parts of the main God, and that the trinity together make up the Triune God. One God in three persons.

 

[aeghrur]

Isn't that the same idea of the Hindu's one god taking multiple forms?

 

[SuperBowser]

Indeed. I don't see how it is different...

In fact I find it strange that you might not go to heaven at all for denying Jesus' existence if you still believe in a God. Since God is one entity, why would he care?

 

[Mr.Lombardi34]

Why should one believe in God and not The Flying Spaghetti monster? No, this is not a useless question, this is perfectly serious.

 

[Eor]

Isn't that the same idea of the Hindu's one god taking multiple forms?

Yes, it is. Except Hinduism lacks Jesus and so forth

Indeed. I don't see how it is different...

In fact I find it strange that you might not go to heaven at all for denying Jesus' existence if you still believe in a God. Since God is one entity, why would he care?

Because. Duh

 

[SuperBowser]

Fair enough lol.

Funny thing is that most Hindus don't deny the existence of Jesus. They either take the agnostic stance of ''unsure about the evidence but it's certainly possible'' or are happy to admit he's just another avatar of Brahman.

 

[RDK]

I love how LotM completely ignored my mega-post. I spent a lot of time on that.

Yay, guys! The fundies are scared of us!

 

[Oracle]

do you have access to the original texts and comprehensive understanding of the languages (hebrew, aramaic, latin, greek, whatever... i dunno)? or something

I've talked to people and done reasearch about it.

 

[Peeze]

Alright i'll throw the bone winged angel.
1 cor 6:9,10
Rom 1:26,27

 

[Oracle]

In 1 cor 6:9,10, many historians and translators believed what was translated as homosexuality was actually an act where older men would take in young boys as "students" and have sex with them , and when the boys got older, the men would "discard" them.

I forgot my argument for Rom 1:26,27, but it had something to do with the fact that paul's goal was to stop certain things with certain groups of people, which is why most of his letters varied.

 

[aeghrur]

Yes, it is. Except Hinduism lacks Jesus and so forth



Because. Duh

But if the concept is the same, then wouldn't Christianity be a multiple God religion just like Hinduism then?

 

[Ryusuta]

But if the concept is the same, then wouldn't Christianity be a multiple God religion just like Hinduism then?

Umm... actually, Christianity kind of is.

 

[aeghrur]

So, I guess we should call Christianity a polytheistic religion then.
Of course, this kind of got us no where, but it was interesting to note.

 

[Eor]

But if the concept is the same, then wouldn't Christianity be a multiple God religion just like Hinduism then?

Hinduism is not multigods like people seem to think, Hinduism is actually a single pantheistic god that all other deities are just "parts" oh.

 

[Ryusuta]

So, I guess we should call Christianity a polytheistic religion then.
Of course, this kind of got us no where, but it was interesting to note.

Well, perhaps. Of course, "monotheistic" and "polytheistic" are somewhat arbitrary labels anyway.

Hinduism is not multigods like people seem to think, Hinduism is actually a single pantheistic god that all other deities are just "parts" oh.

Hence the comparison to Christianity.

 

[marthanoob]

Hinduism is not multigods like people seem to think, Hinduism is actually a single pantheistic god that all other deities are just "parts" oh.

I don't think anyone knows what Hinduism actually is. It has been defying definition for centuries.

According to my studies, Hinduism is "believe whatever you want as long as it has something to do with God...reincarnation is recommended...karma is recommended".

 

[Eor]

I don't think anyone knows what Hinduism actually is. It has been defying definition for centuries.

According to my studies, Hinduism is "believe whatever you want as long as it has something to do with God...reincarnation is recommended...karma is recommended".

Your studies seem pretty terrible

 

[marthanoob]

Your studies seem pretty terrible

Let's call it a difference in perspective. Shall we?

Interesting stance winged angel.
You're going to have to argue more than that against majority thought if you want to convince any of us.

 

[Ryusuta]

In Eor's defense, that DID seem like a bit of an oversimplification.

 

[LordoftheMorning]

Let's be honest about this, man. You're not deciding not to read this stuff because there's too much of it. No one is buying that, so don't sell it. The only reason I feel you would seriously want a "tl;dr" version of the argument is because the full version is too difficult to argue against and you don't want to change your own perspective to incorporate it. Arguing against a sound bite is easy. Considering another perspective is not.

No.... I just really don't have that much time on my hands. My faith is probably unshakable to anyone here, and I'm really not going to go an extra mile trying to understand Atheism when I know that it's wrong. It should be enough that I'm here and I'm making arguments that, at least to me, make sense.-.-

I'm not dropping my older argument, I'll get back to that when I have time I guess. Anyways, I have a question about evolution. Can someone explain to me when a species becomes another species and how? Because if a change in species occurs in one organism it wouldn't be able to reproduce. How does evolution change the species of an organism. This might be more of an "I'm confused" and an unanswerable question, but either way.

 

[Ryusuta]

No.... I just really don't have that much time on my hands. My faith is probably unshakable to anyone here, and I'm really not going to go an extra mile trying to understand Atheism when I know that it's wrong.

Did you just flat-out admit that you're closed-minded? If you're unwilling to seek out a greater perception and understanding than you have, then I agree that it's useless to have a discussion with you.

 

[Eor]

No.... I just really don't have that much time on my hands. My faith is probably unshakable to anyone here, and I'm really not going to go an extra mile trying to understand Atheism when I know that it's wrong. It should be enough that I'm here and I'm making arguments that, at least to me, make sense.-.-

This is a debate, you make arguments then you respond to the counter arguments. If you can't do that then you don't belong here

I'm not dropping my older argument, I'll get back to that when I have time I guess. Anyways, I have a question about evolution. Can someone explain to me when a species becomes another species and how? Because if a change in species occurs in one organism it wouldn't be able to reproduce. How does evolution change the species of an organism. This might be more of an "I'm confused" and an unanswerable question, but either way.

You seem to have a set idea of a species. The idea that one species "became" another is not true, instead one species slowly kept on adapting until it became different from what it started out from. This is behind the classification of animals, from Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, then finally species. For example, "deer" is not a species. "Deer" is a family, so in that classification of deer are the adaptions that make up the genus and species. The deers can still mate with each other, just as horses and donkeys can mate despite being different species, because they are similar enough in biological makeup.

 

[LordoftheMorning]

Did you just flat-out admit that you're closed-minded? If you're unwilling to seek out a greater perception and understanding than you have, then I agree that it's useless to have a discussion with you.

Well.... I guess I'm not arguing with you so that I can become an Atheist too. Sorry if you thought I was. I don't have the time to read links. I didn't sign up for the debate hall to have people plaster me with links and expect me to read them all when in the meantime I have a life and I don't even know if the poster of the link even knows what the link means. How about this: Pure links bug the **** out of me. End of story. Let's stop arguing about arguing and actually argue =3.

You seem to have a set idea of a species. The idea that one species "became" another is not true, instead one species slowly kept on adapting until it became different from what it started out from. This is behind the classification of animals, from Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, then finally species. For example, "deer" is not a species. "Deer" is a family, so in that classification of deer are the adaptions that make up the genus and species. The deers can still mate with each other, just as horses and donkeys can mate despite being different species, because they are similar enough in biological makeup.

The thing I don't understand is where the line between "can interbreed" and "can't interbreed" is. How does an organism change to the point where it can't interbreed with it's old family/genus/species without dying out because it has nothing to reproduce with?

 

[Ryusuta]

Well.... I guess I'm not arguing with you so that I can become an Atheist too. Sorry if you thought I was.

Who said anyone was trying to make you an atheist? You seem to perceive of atheism as a religion in and of itself. It's not.

You see, unlike religions, there are no "requisites" to being an atheist. No one tells you a set of rules that you have to believe in even when they don't make sense. It's not some arbitrary "ideal" that requires defending. It doesn't even necessarily follow that an atheist isn't religious, either.

See, what you're doing is you're perceiving some invisible atheist bogey man that's trying to steal your soul. If you want to keep your delusions, more power to you. For me, personally, it's a lot more realistic to look at the man behind the curtain.

You believe in god the way kids believe in Santa Claus. It doesn't matter how unrealistic the belief is when you think about it, it's more fun to think about the presents you'll be given for being good.

There's also another key difference between us. Whereas you will cover your ears and shut your eyes to keep from seeing or hearing anything you don't agree with or understand, I am constantly seeking for the truth. If that truth is that God exists, give me a reason to believe that! I will be more than happy to admit I'm wrong!

Of course, I will say one thing: even if God existed as Christians perceived of him, I would stand against him unless he did some serious accounting for himself.

Rational skepticism is the foundation of human intelligence. Without it, we'd have died out as a species long ago. Blind faith, on the other hand, has done nothing to ever assist in the overall betterment of mankind. It has, in fact, been a constant detriment.

So you believe what you want to believe. I certainly won't respect that belief (since you choose not to account for it), but I'll willingly acknowledge it.

 

[manhunter098]

The thing I don't understand is where the line between "can interbreed" and "can't interbreed" is. How does an organism change to the point where it can't interbreed with it's old family/genus/species without dying out because it has nothing to reproduce with?

The line between species is never truly defined when a new species is coming about. Its really more like a gradual change of phenotype the average genotype of a single species over time. Of course as these changes become great species are created because of genetic incompatibility.

I am prepared to go pretty in depth into the concept of species diversion though, so if you need anything related to that answered just ask and I will provide.

 

[Eor]

The thing I don't understand is where the line between "can interbreed" and "can't interbreed" is. How does an organism change to the point where it can't interbreed with it's old family/genus/species without dying out because it has nothing to reproduce with?

Evolution does not happen in an individual, that's natural selection. Evolution happens in a population.

 

[marthanoob]

This is a debate, you make arguments then you respond to the counter arguments. If you can't do that then you don't belong here

That's harsh. Let's keep him for the drama .

The line between species is never truly defined when a new species is coming about. Its really more like a gradual change of phenotype the average genotype of a single species over time. Of course as these changes become great species are created because of genetic incompatibility.

I am prepared to go pretty in depth into the concept of species diversion though, so if you need anything related to that answered just ask and I will provide.

One thing I dislike about biology is the arbitrary nature of species categorization.
The biological species concept does not explain the term "species" fully without having exceptions.
For example, we cannot call a male unable to produce sperm born from a viable human female part of the human species according to the biological species concept because he fails to produce viable offspring himself. So we are left with a multitude of species concepts to cover for each other and many vague areas.

I'm just putting that out there to see if I'm wrong, which I assume to be so. Can anyone clarify?

 

[BFDD]

Unfortunately evolution is complicated. If you really want to understand it you have to read the actual science. You can't just have someone here just hand you the answers. There is a lot more to it, what will end up happening is you will take the quick explanation assume that is all there is to it and use that to poke holes in evolution. Much like every other person that supports ID. That is probably the number 1 reason why people choose to believe ID, it is easier to understand and makes more sense than evolution when only given a quick summary of evolution.

And your refusal to actually read the links proves that you don't want to understand evolution. You cannot reasonably claim that evolution is wrong if you refuse to understand it.

 

[Reaver197]

Anyways, I have a question about evolution. Can someone explain to me when a species becomes another species and how? Because if a change in species occurs in one organism it wouldn't be able to reproduce. How does evolution change the species of an organism. This might be more of an "I'm confused" and an unanswerable question, but either way.

What is generally understood as to how speciation occurs is that you start off with what you would consider the "parent" species, with where ever it is located. Now, between migratory patterns (if applicable), changes in the environment, and the search for food, a portion of the population of the parent species may become physically separated from the rest of the population, and inhabit a new area. Due to differing environments and selective pressures, the group that split off than undergoes different evolutionary changes than the parent species. Eventually, the break off group may have evolved so much from the parent group, that it is either physically impossible for them to procreate, or if they do, it results in sterile hybrids that cannot procreate themselves. It is at this point that the break off group is considered a new species separate from the parent species.

Keep in mind, though, that the parent group doesn't necessarily need to remain static either, but can also evolve on their on, further exacerbating differences between the two groups. Also, the inability to procreate can manifest in several ways. One way is such that they have just become so physically different, it is physically impossible for one to impregnate the other, but that requires such huge changes and such large timescales. Other possible ways is that, like with the birds, they have a highly individualized, intricate, and distinct mating process that they refuse to procreate with birds that does not do the proper mating rituals for that particular species. Or, as with flowers, they are dependent upon other animals to procreate. Some flowers attract bees, others might attract, say, hummingbirds. The color of the flower strongly influences which one it attracts, so flowers that attract bees hardly attract hummingbird, and vice versa. If a parent species depended upon one particular species, and an offbreak group comes to depend upon another, they are considered new species, since they will never really naturally reproduce with one another, even though theoretically they might.

I heartily recommend Richard Dawkin's books The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker if you're interested in reading about evolution.

 

[manhunter098]

That's harsh. Let's keep him for the drama .


One thing I dislike about biology is the arbitrary nature of species categorization.
The biological species concept does not explain the term "species" fully without having exceptions.
For example, we cannot call a male unable to produce sperm born from a viable human female part of the human species according to the biological species concept because he fails to produce viable offspring himself. So we are left with a multitude of species concepts to cover for each other and many vague areas.

I'm just putting that out there to see if I'm wrong, which I assume to be so. Can anyone clarify?

Im pretty sure that such a problem is far from a flaw in evolutionary theory, more like an annoyance within it, but its not like it does anything to cause the theory to be wrong.

So basically its not really relevant to the topic to complain about the term species.

 

[Peeze]

In 1 cor 6:9,10, many historians and translators believed what was translated as homosexuality was actually an act where older men would take in young boys as "students" and have sex with them , and when the boys got older, the men would "discard" them.

I forgot my argument for Rom 1:26,27, but it had something to do with the fact that paul's goal was to stop certain things with certain groups of people, which is why most of his letters varied.

Interesting since many translations render it "men who lie with men" not men who lie with boys.
2nd paragraph, what? You forgo your argument so you just made something up didnt you?Paul's goal was to stop certain things from entering the congregation, duh. Thats the whole point of all of his letters was counsel. And they varied, because he was writing to different audiences. You dont write to Romans or Asians the same way you would to Jews. He himself said that-1 Corinthians 9:19-23.

 

[Eor]

The word translated into "homosexuality" is Arsenokoitai, a greek word that is generally translated as "abusers of themselves with mankind", or "defile themselves with mankind". No one really knows what the word itself means, and it has been interpreted to mean homosexuals, pimps, pagan male prostitutes, and people who masturbate. In fact, at the time of Martin Luther the later definition was what it was widely considered, and it wasn't until masturbation became a more socially accepted act that the translation meant homosexuality. However, homosexuality had a clear defined word, "paiderasste", which makes one wonder why Paul or whoever you believe wrote the book would invent a word when a clearer one already exists, and why that word would change it's meaning so many times?

Besides that, the word in front of Arsenokoitai is Malakoi, which is generally translated to mean a boy or young man who participates in sexual acts with men, a pederast relationship.

It is also worth noting that while Paul speaks about Arsenokoitai, Jesus never even mentions in, or condemns homosexuality.

 

[Peeze]

Soooo, what your arguing is, why did paul use a synonym? And you cant really argue the word homosexual since Pual actually never uses the word "homosexual".
I like how Young's literal translation puts it-sodomites. There's no mistaking there.

Jesus never mentions nor condemned sacrificing your children in a fire either. That means he was for it right?

 

[Xsyven]

See guys, this is why the bible sucks. =/

It can mean whatever the hell you want it to say, and as such, loses all credibility in my opinion.