Evolution VS Creation

[Phoenix]

I am not avoiding the question. There is no "for the sake of the conversation", I am not the one wanting to convince others that what they believe in doesn't exist. So, for the sake of the conversation, I won't even try to disprove Santa Claus, this is your issue, not mine.

My God, why do you persist on avoiding the question? It's a simple enough hypothetical: if you wanted to disprove Santa Claus, how would you? Why are you so afraid of the question? If you don't even try to answer it, then you really never gave a shit about having a discussion, so you're wasting my time.

Yes. If you believe there is an invisible alien behind me, it's your right. I won't say to you he doesn't exist, even though I have my own thought.

How do you fix this, gentlemen? You refuse to address the points every single time. I'm not sure if you do it purposely, or if you honestly don't understand what I'm typing.

It doesn't matter because it absolutely doesn't help your point. But, the bible says things which happened. I guess when we find things from the past and have the history of ancient civilization, it has no value to you. But it has, and the Bible has this value.

What exactly doesn't help prove my point? I ask because I'm doubtful you actually understand what I'm saying now.

[kazukifafner]

Phoenix, I can honestly say that I no longer have any desire to debate with you. You are merely stubborn and refuse to accept the explanations given and attribute titles to them (such as "rationalizing") in order to make yourself seem as though anything given is merely pointless. Everything you have said to me is merely claiming your idea by trying to tie irrelevant things together (which the Evolutionist community does quite often) and using bias research to back it up, thereby convincing the majority of this obviously flawed scientific theory.

Before I go, I'll say one last thing. You say the Big Bang and others are not part of Evolution. This is the most blatant form of backpedaling that I have ever seen. If the Theory of Evolution is so weak that it results around this type of behavior, than all the more reason that it isn't credible. Even though it isn't directly related, it is related in the sense that if it didn't happen, then that means the Universe was created, and not the product of random events.

As I mentioned, this will be the last time I will post on this thread.

[Phoenix]

Phoenix, I can honestly say that I no longer have any desire to debate with you. You are merely stubborn and refuse to accept the explanations given and attribute titles to them (such as "rationalizing") in order to make yourself seem as though anything given is merely pointless. Everything you have said to me is merely claiming your idea by trying to tie irrelevant things together (which the Evolutionist community does quite often) and using bias research to back it up, thereby convincing the majority of this obviously flawed scientific theory.

It's funny how you say this directly after saying that you won't talk about evolution anymore because you barely know anything about it:

"I am a Christian, and I often struggled with the question "Why is it that this book is true, and not the other religious books". Well, with a little digging (and help from my supportive teachers) I think I was able to find the answer. Hopefully, I have more knowledge of this than I do of Evolution (Granted, Phoenix, I still do not believe in the theory, however, I do apologize for trying to debate with the little knowledge that I have; and until I can, I won't debate with you on that any further, I admit defeat)."

You know absolutely nothing about the theory, yet it is obviously flawed? Hypocrisy much?

Before I go, I'll say one last thing. You say the Big Bang and others are not part of Evolution. This is the most blatant form of backpedaling that I have ever seen. If the Theory of Evolution is so weak that it results around this type of behavior, than all the more reason that it isn't credible. Even though it isn't directly related, it is related in the sense that if it didn't happen, then that means the Universe was created, and not the product of random events.

Evolution is "the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next". You can believe God created the Universe, and still believe in evolution. How is it backpedaling? It'd be a fallacy to do what you do and say "God created everything, what's for dinner?".

Your mistake is that you assume evolution to be atheistic and exclusively naturalistic, when that is merely your bias.

As I mentioned, this will be the last time I will post on this thread.

'k, see ya, don't slam your door on your way out. You know what, the feeling goes both ways. I have no intention of debating someone who is in a topic of which he knows absolutely nothing about, that believes in the opposing idea and has faith in it solely because he doesn't understand shit about Biology.

[guyfromcrowd]

i believe in creation, but i dont want to have a huge debate, so as not to offend anybody, and because its against my religion...

[Lezard Valeth]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

My God, why do you persist on avoiding the question? It's a simple enough hypothetical: if you wanted to disprove Santa Claus, how would you? Why are you so afraid of the question? If you don't even try to answer it, then you really never gave a shit about having a discussion, so you're wasting my time.

It's you who insists on avoiding my point. If I had to make some proof against Santa, I'd first make research and I don't have the will or the time to make that, my apologies. The, I'd state what I know and believe in. If the person in front of me is convinced to be right in his faith, nothing I can do y'know. Things is that argumenting against Santa is far more easy, why everyone know him, etc, can easily be found, and he has not the Bible with him.

How do you fix this, gentlemen? You refuse to address the points every single time. I'm not sure if you do it purposely, or if you honestly don't understand what I'm typing.

Even though the fact of me being french and still learning to speak english can be in a lot in why you don't understand what I say, I fear to indeed, not understand your point. I say you that if you think there's an alien behind my head, if you really are convinced of this, then it's your choice, but we both know it's an example you chosed and don't believe in this.

What exactly doesn't help prove my point? I ask because I'm doubtful you actually understand what I'm saying now.

The bible, actually doesn't help your point, because it makes God's existence far more likely than Santa. If for you, a character famous thanks to Coca Cola is as likely to exist than God which has the Bible since more than 2000 years, Bible having text and being a source, then no need to continue the debate.

[Phoenix]

It's you who insists on avoiding my point. If I had to make some proof against Santa, I'd first make research and I don't have the will or the time to make that, my apologies. The, I'd state what I know and believe in. If the person in front of me is convinced to be right in his faith, nothing I can do y'know. Things is that argumenting against Santa is far more easy, why everyone know him, etc, can easily be found, and he has not the Bible with him.

You'd do research. Research on what? Know, this isn't about opinions or faith, this is about finding a way to completely disprove the existence of Santa Claus. Can it be done?

Even though the fact of me being french and still learning to speak english can be in a lot in why you don't understand what I say, I fear to indeed, not understand your point. I say you that if you think there's an alien behind my head, if you really are convinced of this, then it's your choice, but we both know it's an example you chosed and don't believe in this.

If I believed it that, I could be wrong (in fact, I would be wrong). The door goes both ways; just because you have faith in God doesn't make him real.

The bible, actually doesn't help your point, because it makes God's existence far more likely than Santa. If for you, a character famous thanks to Coca Cola is as likely to exist than God which has the Bible since more than 2000 years, Bible having text and being a source, then no need to continue the debate.

So, according to that logic, since there are more books written about King Arthur than there are about, say, my father, does King Arthur of England have a higher chance of being real than my father?

[Lezard Valeth]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

You'd do research. Research on what? Know, this isn't about opinions or faith, this is about finding a way to completely disprove the existence of Santa Claus. Can it be done?

On what he was before Coca Cola, etc etc. If he cannot be totally disproved and that someone chose to believe in him, like I said, I am not one to go against the faith of others.

If I believed it that, I could be wrong (in fact, I would be wrong). The door goes both ways; just because you have faith in God doesn't make him real.

Again an example right? Example are used to show how work a rule (what said the definition you sooner). But, they do not create the rule. Demonstration does.

So, according to that logic, since there are more books written about King Arthur than there are about, say, my father, does King Arthur of England have a higher chance of being real than my father?

Why would he be more real than your father? Your father, you can see him, no explanation are needed you know. Now, Arthur is a special case, there is legends and facts, people are confused between the both, etc etc. He has book. If you have historical source going against the fact he existed, that's another matter. If you have none, then, the book are pretty much a proof, condition being historical source doesn't go against, then there'd be a debate.
And, historical source doesn't go against God's existence...

[Phoenix]

On what he was before Coca Cola, etc etc. If he cannot be totally disproved and that someone chose to believe in him, like I said, I am not one to go against the faith of others.

What do you mean if he cannot be totally disproved? If he doesn't exist, it should be possible to prove that, right?

Again an example right? Example are used to show how work a rule (what said the definition you sooner). But, they do not create the rule. Demonstration does.

What the hell? Did you not pay attention to what I said at the end?

"The door goes both ways; just because you have faith in God doesn't make him real"

How do you want me to demonstrate that having faith does not mean something is real? I would think that this is common sense. Do you want me to dig up an old Greek account of Zeus, then bring that to Mt. Olympus, climb, it, and when I get to the top yell "HAH, Zeus is not real!"?

Why would he be more real than your father? Your father, you can see him, no explanation are needed you know.

Then, obviously, having a written account does not make you more real on virtue of having a written account.

Now, Arthur is a special case, there is legends and facts, people are confused between the both, etc etc. He has book. If you have historical source going against the fact he existed, that's another matter. If you have none, then, the book are pretty much a proof, condition being historical source doesn't go against, then there'd be a debate.
And, historical source doesn't go against God's existence...

Good thing you're not a historian. If you were, we'd have Arthurs, Herculeses and Achilleses all around history for the simple fact that there is no written document against them.

That's not how history works. The books are not "pretty much proof" just because nothing else contradicts them. If the characters fit their historical period, if they don't seem too mythological, if they're not going around reviving dead people, then they get a big "maybe" in history. If other independent sources confirm their existence, then they get a "probably" in history. Jesus, for example has a "maybe-probably". Adam, from Genesis, has a "no".

Either way, my point was to show that just because someone has written about King Arthur does not mean he is more real than my father, even if no one has written about my father.

However, let me try a different approach. Which contains the truth: the Bible or the Qur'an?

[Dogenzaka]

So, according to your logic, I should not be able to find passages of the different Gospels that are identical.

Of course you can, but there are also parts where the gospels say different things about the same picture.

Do you know how far you're going in grasping straws? You're actually suggesting that Jesus', Lord and Savior of the entire world, last words were either remembered wrongly or changed so as to not repeat. Jesus' last words changed so as to not copy the other Gospels.

No...Matthew said he cried out with a loud voice. Luke said that he said "Father into your hands I commit my spirit" and he breathed his last, so obviously that seems to be emphasized as the last thing he said, and John says he said "It is finished". So it most likely went that Jesus drank of the vinegar, cried out "It is finished." then "Father into your hands I commit my spirit" and he breathed his last and gave up the Spirit. You know, that wasn't so hard to figure out.

That is really not one of the most complicated aspects of scripture, that various before you have studied and solved. There are people with degrees in this you know, there are people who have studied and debated this for dozens of years and are still Christians, and if they had found so many fallacies I'm sure they wouldn't have stayed Christian. Then again the same can be said for people for the opposite side, so I'm not stating this so much as an argument, as just pointing it out.

This is God moving the Persians to war. Also, emphasis on the baby slaughter and the rape, and God's apparent indifference.

Where does it say Persia? lol
Honestly, it doesn't name the Persians, so it possibly hadn't happened yet. Israel didn't become a nation until like 60 years ago. Not everything interesting the Bible is talking about necessarily had to happen 2,000 years ago.

Realize that Persia did not destroy Babylon, and the Scripture talks about that happening.

It could very well be talking about the future. We aren't on very good terms with the Middle East and Persia right now, and if we nuke them it would be like fire from heaven destroying the place. Not saying that's the prophesy, just pointing it out XD

I'm not trying to find contradictions in doctrine, i just need some small little errors. With these small little errors, I'm asking the guy (and not obtaining and answer) what makes the Bible holier than the Qur'an?

The reason why Christians think it's holier than the Qu'ran, is because they/we believe it's written by the true God, and not the deceptive, false God of the Qu'ran. Proven by Jesus Christ and his works.

Can you link me to your source, please? I had a site that had the hebrew words for every worse and the definitions, but I lost it :<

The Septuagint (Greek, translated from Hebrew around 250 BC) says this in II Samuel:

II Samuel 24:13:
και εισηλθεν γαδ προς δαυιδ και ανηγγειλεν αυτω και ειπεν αυτω εκλεξαι σεαυτω γενεσθαι ει ελθη σοι τρια ετη λιμος εν τη γη σου η τρεις μηνας φευγειν σε εμπροσθεν των εχθρων σου και εσονται διωκοντες σε η γενεσθαι τρεις ημερας θανατον εν τη γη σου νυν ουν γνωθι και ιδε τι αποκριθω τω αποστειλαντι με ρημα

If you put that in Google Translator (although, my Youth Director has all sorts of Bible versions and translations, including the Septuagint so that's where I directly got my source), it says:

24:13 and eisilthen gad to dafid and aningeilen these and eipen these eklexai seafto done if elthi Those three years limos in the land you the three months fefgein in emprosthen of your enemies and esontai diokontes in the water three days death in your land now s gnothi and ide what apokritho to aposteilanti with verb

21:11 and ilthen gad to dafid and eipen these so says main eklexai seafto

And I Chronicles 22:11-12 says:
η τρια ετη λιμου η τρεις μηνας φευγειν σε εκ προσωπου εχθρων σου και μαχαιραν εχθρων σου του εξολεθρευσαι η τρεις ημερας ρομφαιαν κυριου και θανατον εν τη γη και αγγελος κυριου εξολεθρευων εν παση κληρονομια ισραηλ και νυν ιδε τι αποκριθω τω αποστειλαντι με λογον

Put through Google Translator again, it says:

21:11 and ilthen gad to dafid and eipen these so says main eklexai seafto
21:12 or three years limou the three months fefgein in person on your enemies and your enemies machairan exolethrefsai of the three days romfaian owner and death in the earth angel and owner exolethrefon in any heritage israel and now ide what apokritho to aposteilanti with logon

Interesting what reading an older version of the Bible can do xD
Greek OT (Septuagint/LXX) UTF8 2 Samuel Chapter 24:1-25.

[Sir Meta Knight]

I have to agree with Pho in this conversation, though. I mean, he's pretty much made his point already.

[HadesDragon]

Originally Posted by Dogenzaka

The reason why Christians think it's holier than the Qu'ran, is because they/we believe it's written by the true God, and not the deceptive, false God of the Qu'ran. Proven by Jesus Christ and his works.

The god the Islam worship (and the Jews as well) and your christian God are very much the same one as far as I know. They just don't believe in Jesus Christ in the same way you do, though among them, to my knowledge, he is still a highly respected figure.

[Dogenzaka]

The god the Islam worship (and the Jews as well) and your christian God are very much the same one as far as I know.

Oh heck no, their idea of God is completely different from our idea of what God is. Read the Qu'ran, lol.
That, and the Qu'ran clearly tells us that we're wrong and that their God is the true God, so obviously there is almost no similarity in beliefs with Islam and Christianity.

[HadesDragon]

Originally Posted by Dogenzaka

Oh heck no, their idea of God is completely different from our idea of what God is. Read the Qu'ran, lol.
That, and the Qu'ran clearly tells us that we're wrong and that their God is the true God, so obviously there is almost no similarity in beliefs with Islam and Christianity.

http://forums.khinsider.com/religiou...ons-islam.html

MISCONCEPTION #3:
Muslims worship a different God.

Allah is simply the Arabic word for God. Allah for Muslims is the
greatest and most inclusive of the Names of God, it is an Arabic word
of rich meaning, denoting the one and only God and ascribing no
partners to Him. It is exactly the same word which the Jews, in
Hebrew, use for God (eloh), the word which Jesus Christ used in
Aramaic when he prayed to God. God has an identical name in Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam; Allah is the same God worshiped by Muslims,
Christians and Jews. Muslims believe that Allah's sovereignty is to
be acknowledged in worship and in the pledge to obey His teaching and
commandments, conveyed through His messengers and prophets who were
sent at various times and in many places throughout history.
However, it should be noted that God in Islam is One and Only. He,
the Exalted, does not get tired, does not have a son ie Jesus or
have associates, nor does He have human-like attributions as found in
other faiths.

Basically, they consider the god the same, just that Christianity and Judaism altered text/interpretations and such.

[Phoenix]

No...Matthew said he cried out with a loud voice. Luke said that he said "Father into your hands I commit my spirit" and he breathed his last, so obviously that seems to be emphasized as the last thing he said, and John says he said "It is finished". So it most likely went that Jesus drank of the vinegar, cried out "It is finished." then "Father into your hands I commit my spirit" and he breathed his last and gave up the Spirit. You know, that wasn't so hard to figure out.

That is really not one of the most complicated aspects of scripture, that various before you have studied and solved. There are people with degrees in this you know, there are people who have studied and debated this for dozens of years and are still Christians, and if they had found so many fallacies I'm sure they wouldn't have stayed Christian. Then again the same can be said for people for the opposite side, so I'm not stating this so much as an argument, as just pointing it out.

So, at what point after Jesus apparently said "It is finished" did John say "Nah, I won't put in the last thing he said"? You know, in every other type of writing, the important guy's last words are usually important enough to be written, even if 80 different people have to do it. The exception being, of course, that they weren't there, which is a no-brainer, since people like, say, Luke, never met Jesus anyway.

Where does it say Persia? lol
Honestly, it doesn't name the Persians, so it possibly hadn't happened yet. Israel didn't become a nation until like 60 years ago. Not everything interesting the Bible is talking about necessarily had to happen 2,000 years ago.

Realize that Persia did not destroy Babylon, and the Scripture talks about that happening.

It could very well be talking about the future. We aren't on very good terms with the Middle East and Persia right now, and if we nuke them it would be like fire from heaven destroying the place. Not saying that's the prophesy, just pointing it out XD

When the prophecy says "Medes", what did you understand by that?

The reason why Christians think it's holier than the Qu'ran, is because they/we believe it's written by the true God, and not the deceptive, false God of the Qu'ran. Proven by Jesus Christ and his works.

I assume you've read both the Bible and the Qur'an? The parts I read seem pretty reminiscent of the Bible.

The Septuagint (Greek, translated from Hebrew around 250 BC) says this in II Samuel:

You know, I'll be the first to admit I'm no expert in ancient languages, but you know what's really amazing?

2 Samuel 24:13 So Gad came to David and told him, and said

1 of the 12 translations has 3, the remaining 11 has 7.

unto him Shall seven
sheba` (sheh'-bah)
a primitive cardinal number; seven (as the sacred full one); also (adverbially) seven times; by implication, a week; by extension, an indefinite number


Well Dogen, one of us is lying.

[Dogenzaka]

http://forums.khinsider.com/religiou...ons-islam.html

Unless you read the Bible, you really have no idea how different the religions are. They stem from the Old Testament, but their idea of God is completely wrong in the eyes of Christians. Especially how the Qu'ran says that "bashful virgins" and "handsome youths" will feed you grapes in Heaven. Awfully strange of a God to make a heaven like that, who was so against lust in the Old Testament.

So, at what point after Jesus apparently said "It is finished" did John say "Nah, I won't put in the last thing he said"? You know, in every other type of writing, the important guy's last words are usually important enough to be written, even if 80 different people have to do it.

Yeah, that wasn't John's aim. His gospel was written at least 30 years after the others, it was unnecessary to point out what various others had said, and it was obvious that what was important to him (especially how different the gospel of John is written in comparison to the other gospels) was that the deed was done, the deal is finished, that sin is conquered.

The gospels all complete a final picture.

The exception being, of course, that they weren't there, which is a no-brainer, since people like, say, Luke, never met Jesus anyway.

But they were under the direction of someone who had directly been involved with Jesus throughout their Christian life.

When the prophecy says "Medes", what did you understand by that?

I still don't understand where you believe the prophesy has a "date" written by it?

1 of the 12 translations has 3, the remaining 11 has 7.

unto him Shall seven
sheba` (sheh'-bah)
a primitive cardinal number; seven (as the sacred full one); also (adverbially) seven times; by implication, a week; by extension, an indefinite number


Well Dogen, one of us is lying.

The oldest translation says three.
The modern translations says seven.
That means sometime between the Septuagint and the modern translations, an error was made. Just like many other modern modern-translation hiccups, like the word Hell.
The original scripture does not have that error.