Thread: message to lucifers followers

Wow Joanna - I think your belief system may just be weirder than Knight31's! (I must say I like it better though!)

I thought in order to get in you had to accept Jesus as your savior? Which makes me suddenly realize - I guess in mainstream Christianity not believing is probably a worse sin than following Satan - because if you follow Satan at least it means you still believe in the whole shebang. Though I guess either is ok if you repent, say your hail Marys and pledge your soul to Jesus or God or whoever.

Alright, enough of this idle speculation, I'll just go right to the source and ask Knight31 - what does become of the people who are duped by Satan? Do they get into heaven when they die? Do they go to hell?

I am Episcopalian, and that's pretty mainstream. So I would caution against generalizing about "mainstream" Christianity. There are many differences between different denominations. Episcopalianism is pretty tolerant, and it is fairly diverse meaning that my beliefs are not necessarily shared by all Episcopalians, although I know that I am not the only Episcopalian who entertains the possibility of universal salvation.

Edit: One of the ways I can claim that my church is part of mainstream is that it is one of the Christian Churches with apostolic succession, meaning that all bishops have been ordained by bishops who have been ordained by bishops etc going back to the apostles, so it is a direct lineage of teachings from teacher to student and approval granted over generations. The Episcopal Church is part of the Anglican Communion and like the Roman Catholic Church we also have Apostolic succession, which makes us pretty mainstream. We are in communion with Anglicans worldwide and also with a large portion of the Lutheran Church. So I think I can claim being part of Mainstream Christianity.

Originally Posted by Alric

You can indeed trace them all back to one animal. 8 million years ago there were animals called Cynodicits which the different animals in the dog family can trace their ancestors too. If you go back further to 60 million years ago there was the Miacids which are the ancestors of dogs, cats and bears. We know all this and can prove it with fossil records and dna evidence. Of course you reject all modern biology so you wouldn't know anything about animals and their common ancestors.

You do realize that evolution as a theory is on it's way out these days for several reasons. One it doesn't make sense, and many of them being people who try and dress it up as if there were more evidence then there really is, which I can see you are one of those, and by committing fraud to support their claims, is also really discrediting for the evolutionist perspective. No other perspective in science has done so much fraud before. We can not trace things back and that's utter nonsense. Only hardcore evolutionist would ever claim that there is not missing links. The rest of us know and can clearly obviously see many large missing links, or simply no connections at all if you want to be specific. You make wild guesses with no scientific reasoning or validity behind those estimates.

We are talking about mutations in DNA not cell damage. The mutation has to be able to be passed on from parent to child, and a hit to the head can't be passed on. Also there wasn't books a million years ago, so being able to read fast is of no advantage to our ancestors, and so we didn't evolve with photographic memory.

mutations are reversible for instance parents who have certain genetic conditions might have a child that is not vulnerable to that in their genes. The problem is you cannot demonstrate that you could mutate enough from bacteria to a human in the period that earth has existed for. Mutations in dna happen all the time but they don't lead to an advancement in DNA. You keep ignoring this fact because otherwise you would have to admit that mutations is not evolving into anything more complex which is what your theory needs to accomplish to be valid.

Cell division is a better analogy than total randomness because evolution isn't random, it is a process that takes a lot of small changes, added over long periods of time to create something complex.

Genetics are known to interact with environment but mutations cannot make DNA more complex! When are you going to understand that concept? Replication of Dna through cells, and the growing of a fetus, is nothing to do with your theory of evolution. That's just copying dna from what already exists, so that's a really bad example! Your theory states that advancements through mutations can occur, but that's actually impossible, even over a long period of time. An according to you evolution would go according to whatever benefits the organism in it's current environment, so depending on the current environment it actually would be totally random because the environment changes all the time.

That is exactly how evolution works. Things don't turn into other things, they have minor chances over thousands of generations and some continue to pass on their genes while other die.

According to you we went from bacteria in ocean, or from nothing in the ocean, to human. That's not a minor change even for trillions of years that's not a minor change, and it's more than turning into something, it's flat out getting something from nothingness.

Yes we do have 3 billion year old fossils. There are Stromatolites from 3.5 billion years ago.

So what?

We know what the earth was like back then due to fossils and evidence gained from layers deep within rocks and stuff like that. Unlike you who just makes stuff up, scientist use actual evidence to know what happened in the past.

I realize you can study rocks and things for the age of certain things, but you haven't got a full picture of what it was like billions of years ago. You are not being scientific or giving me any examples of what you believe. This is plain arrogance that you think you can say it's all true without proving reasons behind what you say. don't you realize even today they are discovering new things about our past constantly. Just about everything of our past contradicts what you claim here.

Yes evolution does have a theory on what would happen, that the bacteria would change and adapt, and it did.

So does colds and flus, and other viruses, change and adpat, but so what? It doesn't prove mutations actually increase dna complexity. A virus remains a virus, it doesn't change it to something else through 'evolution' in the way that you claim.

When you pass genes on from generation to generation, the process is no perfect so you get small variations and errors along the way and that is how evolution occurs.

No it isn't. Those errors are not even significant enough to lead to anything, ever. And errors in dna can actually cure themselves too.

It would take serious genetic engineering or a lot of time, evolution just happens to use a long time.

There is not enough time in the universe from when science theorizes the big bang occurs, for what you are claiming to have evolved, to evolved into what we see today. That is your big fundamental problem that cannot be overcome with your current paradigm. You either have to adopt a new theory or give up.

You don't seem to realize how minor changes can stack up to really big changes over extremely long periods of time. Even a living person wouldn't evolve over a million years because we are not talking about individual people. We are talking about groups and passing genes on from parent to child. Any example you give that doesn't involve passing traits on to the next generation doesn't really fit.

How does a jellyfish in the sea, pass traits off to change their dna into a human? Your theory is pure lunacy.

Being made up of atoms doesn't make something a living organism. By the definition of the words a brick isn't an organism. Also bricks and wood are not elements.

Everything is made up of the elements go look up a periodic table. What do you think living organisms are made of? Atoms. Remember you have 50% genetics in common with a banana. So according to you a banana is passing off traits that is half way to becoming a human. But we know that is ridiculous and your theory of passing off errors in genetics as extra increased dna complexity is a pretty flawed theory that has never been demonstrated before. A banana tree will never, ever, evolve into a human. Neither will fish in the sea. Neither will an elephant evolve from the same thing that a giraffe came from. These are just your fantasies that we all came from a jellyfish. Yet even a jellyfish would need to have a beginning to even have any dna in the first place.

No it doesn't, evolution doesn't say anything about inanimate objects at all. Evolution deals only with living organisms changing over time from generation to generation. It doesn't go back to the big bang, that is a separate theory all together, dealing with another issue.

When the earth was created it had to come from something, matter, scientist theorized it was 'the big bang'. Your theory of evolution requires a beginning still. You can't just say living organisms appeared from nothing or that they always existed on earth. That would go against what you believe is your theory. But that's where you have to start. That's what is so amusing about all this is your contradictions.

You seem to be mixing up different subjects now. Apparently modern science is to complex for you to understand.

and yet I have gone through University already. Which is where it gets taught.

Pretty much everything before humans came along was created without a designer. Evolution clearly explains how complex life forms came from simple life forms, you just refuse to understand it. I don't think you are even trying to understand it. However, your failure to understand something doesn't make it any less true or factual.

It doesn't clearly explain it cause there is no explanation for your theory cause it makes no sense. This is why you have no choice but to keep saying "yes it's true" without giving a reason about how it possibly could make sense. You have no evidence that there was not a designer of our dna. In fact evidence suggest a designer is the only reasonable explanation. Cities don't design themselves, airplanes don't fly around and get built on their own. This response to you doesn't get typed up from no-one. Every product in society that you have ever brought was designed by someone.
Why do you think we would be any different?

Originally Posted by darkmatters

what does become of the people who are duped by Satan? Do they get into heaven when they die? Do they go to hell?

People who follow satan refuse god and the wages of sin is death. If you want details of the exact external environment, then the external environment will match your internal state. If your internal state is full of conflict, your external state will reflect that. If you are looking for a response like "you go into burning flames" verses "you go up on a cloud with people with harps" You may need more civilized thinking than this, and go beyond this type of simplicity to understand vast concepts of life and death (but I understand your motive is just to trap me with a stupid question) If you have played video games or have any life experience you will know there is many types of environments, to think that the only possible environments are playing harps on a cloud, verses burning flames in a lake of lava, you might not be considering the full range of environments that can happen there. The reason you don't think about it properly is because you don't want to admit it so you make it very simple to the point where it's like you are in preschool asking a question. Fact is you have already defined heaven and hell in your own mind and want to project that on to me. So I couldn't possibly judge where others will go. No only do you want to project heaven and hell on to me but your idea of satan and god to. That is far more extreme than even asking me where I think everyone's life will lead or how the earth will turn out in the next 2000 years. I can't judge who is to be 'duped' by satan, or where they will go. The question is too vague, and clearly it is a question asked not out of wanting to know something.

Originally Posted by knight31

People who follow satan refuse god and the wages of sin is death. If you want details of the exact external environment, then the external environment will match your internal state. If your internal state is full of conflict, your external state will reflect that.

Ah ok, that begins to explain it. Are you talking about after death, your external environment matches your internal state?

Just so I understand though, there is a hell and sinners do suffer there eternally right? But being deceived by Satan isn't enough of a sin to land you there?

Alright, I do feel I was being pretty hard-headed in this thread, and for that I apologize to both of you, Knight31 and Joanna. I'm glad I entered into this conversation though, because it's opening my eyes to a few things I didn't understand before. Thank you both for answering my questions.

** Edit

I see you've added a bit to your answer. No, I understand playing harps on clouds and lakes of burning blood etc are mostly just Hollywood conventions, and I'm actually somewhat familiar with Dante's Inferno, where he described many different types of tortures, each fitting the sins of the people trapped on that level. But now I'm confused again - you said the wages of sin is death - does that mean there is no hell? Or does it mean sinners die and then suffer these torments? Or are you saying that while we're still alive our external environment matches our inner state, like a heaven and hell on earth kind of thing?

Just when I thought I was beginning to understand it too!

Does anybody else understand who might be able to explain it more clearly?

Originally Posted by knight31

You do realize that evolution as a theory is on it's way out these days for several reasons. One it doesn't make sense, and many of them being people who try and dress it up as if there were more evidence then there really is, which I can see you are one of those, and by committing fraud to support their claims, is also really discrediting for the evolutionist perspective. No other perspective in science has done so much fraud before. We can not trace things back and that's utter nonsense. Only hardcore evolutionist would ever claim that there is not missing links. The rest of us know and can clearly obviously see many large missing links, or simply no connections are all eif you want to be specific.

Only in your little fantasy world is science turning against evolution. Evolution has pretty much been considered fact for the last 50 years, and all scientist accepts it and there is a ton of evidence to prove it, and I keep naming all the evidence and you just totally ignore what I say.

mutations are reversible for instance parents who have certain genetic conditions might have a child that is not vulnerable to that in their genes. The problem is you cannot demonstrate that you could mutate enough from bacteria to a human in the period that earth has existed for. Mutations in dna happen all the time but they don't lead to an advancement in DNA. You keep ignoring this fact because otherwise you would have to admit that mutations is not evolving into anything more complex which is what your theory needs to accomplish to be valid.

I already explained this, there is genetic disorders where you can have extra chromosomes and things of that nature. So it is a proven fact that a mutation can cause dna to change and be more complex. DNA with an extra chromosome would be more complex.

Genetics are known to interact with environment but mutations cannot make DNA more complex! When are you going to understand that concept? Replication of Dna through cells, and the growing of a fetus, is nothing to do with your theory of evolution. That's just copying dna from what already exists, so that's a really bad example! Your theory states that advancements through mutations can occur, but that's actually impossible, even over a long period of time. An according to you evolution would go according to whatever benefits the organism in it's current environment, so depending on the current environment it actually would be totally random because the environment changes all the time.

I already proved that dna can change, you are just ignoring the facts.

According to you we went from bacteria in ocean, or from nothing in the ocean, to human. That's not a minor change even for trillions of years that's not a minor change, and it's more than turning into something, it's flat out getting something from nothingness.

Again evolution explains how life advanced from single cell organisms to the more complex ones we have today, it doesn't explain how the earth got created, or how life started. Those are different theories.

So what?

So what? You ask for evidence and I give you evidence and you just ignore it.

I realize you can study rocks and things for the age of certain things, but you haven't got a full picture of what it was like billions of years ago. You are not being scientific or giving me any examples of what you believe. This is plain arrogance that you think you can say it's all true without proving reasons behind what you say. don't you realize even today they are discovering new things about our past constantly. Just about everything of our past contradicts what you claim here.

I already gave you proof and explained my reasons. There is fossil and rock evidence showing that all early creatures came from the sea.

So does colds and flus, and other viruses, change and adpat, but so what? It doesn't prove mutations actually increase dna complexity. A virus remains a virus, it doesn't change it to something else through 'evolution' in the way that you claim.

Exactly, colds and flus and viruses that change and adapt are evolving. They are just more evidence that evolution is in fact correct and accurate.

No it isn't. Those errors are not even significant enough to lead to anything, ever. And errors in dna can actually cure themselves too.

Yes they are, I already proved to you how things changed, it is how we get different breeds of dogs and how the bacteria changed over time in that experiment. You only ignore the evidence because it proves you wrong.

There is not enough time in the universe from when science theorizes the big bang occurs, for what you are claiming to have evolved, to evolved into what we see today. That is your big fundamental problem that cannot be overcome with your current paradigm. You either have to adopt a new theory or give up.

You are just misjudging the amount of time involved in things. You are a poor judge of math and that has been shown already.

How does a jellyfish in the sea, pass traits off to change their dna into a human? Your theory is pure lunacy.

It does one step at a time. I can't believe you are still claiming things don't change when there is overwhelming evidence of pretty much everything changing all around us. You even mentioned things like viruses changes. You claim things change but then say that things changing is impossible. Your position makes no logical sense and your contradicting your self.

Everything is made up of the elements go look up a periodic table. What do you think living organisms are made of? Atoms. Remember you have 50 genetics in common with a banana.

Everything is made up of elements but that isn't what you said. You said brick and wood was an element and they are not. Look up brick on the periodic table, it isn't there.

When the earth was created it had to come from something, matter, scientist theorized it was 'the big bang'. Your theory of evolution requires a beginning still. You can't just say living organisms appeared from nothing or that they always existed on earth. That would go against what you believe is your theory. But that's where you have to start. That's what is so amusing about all this is your contradictions.

The theory of evolution doesn't require a beginning. Just like the theory of gravity doesn't need to explain how gravity came to exist for us to know things are attracted to each other. Also we know at the early formation of the earth life could not live on this planet, so it is impossible that life has always existed on earth. At least not in anything remotely close to modern life.

It doesn't clearly explain it cause there is no explanation for your theory cause it makes no sense. This is why you have no choice but to keep saying "yes it's true" without giving a reason about how it possible could make sense.

There is like 5 pages of me explaining it to you, you are just failing to grasp the concept. I bet if I asked you to repeat my argument and explain my position you couldn't explain it accurately. Evolution is the only logical answers for how life changed over time on earth and there is tons and tons of evidence and experimentation proving it to be fact.

An alternative to the universal salvation possibility: One way of understanding hell would be as being separated from God. And I do not mean separated from God and suffering in eternal fire, but just being separated from God period. For believers who believe that God is all good and loving that's quite a punishment. Another way of looking at it is that God loves humans so much that he is willing to let them go if that is truly their choice, so God will not impose his love on those who do not want and accept it.

Also not all Christians believe that this lifetime is a one shot deal at earning salvation. There is the idea of Purgatory which is a place neither heaven nor hell, and from which one can eventually reach heaven once one has repented from sins. You would also be surprised how many Christians believe in reincarnation, and I think Christianity is not necessarily incompatible with the possibility of reincarnation.

So Christian belief is not all fire and brimstone. Some Christian denominations are of course, but others would cringe at the idea of eternal demnation in a firy hell and not believe in that.

And one can very much believe in God and Christ, and not believe in Satan. I actually do not believe that Satan is real. I believe that Satan is an excuse humans have come up with for justifying evil by claiming "the devil made me do it", and I believe that believing in a powerful evil entity would only give evil more power than it deserves to have, plus I believe that my religion is monotheistic and thus there is one God and not two and for me a belief in Satan is almost dualistic and sacrilegious. Plus, even if I am wrong, I believe that not believing that Satan is real could not possibly be a sin even if he were real, so there is no harm in not believing in him if he is real, and potentially great harm in believing him to be real.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Ah ok, that begins to explain it. Are you talking about after death, your external environment matches your internal state?

Just so I understand though, there is a hell and sinners do suffer there eternally right? But being deceived by Satan isn't enough of a sin to land you there?

Alright, I do feel I was being pretty hard-headed in this thread, and for that I apologize to both of you, Knight31 and Joanna. I'm glad I entered into this conversation though, because it's opening my eyes to a few things I didn't understand before. Thank you both for answering my questions.

** Edit

I see you've added a bit to your answer. No, I understand playing harps on clouds and lakes of burning blood etc are mostly just Hollywood conventions, and I'm actually somewhat familiar with Dante's Inferno, where he described many different types of tortures, each fitting the sins of the people trapped on that level. But now I'm confused again - you said the wages of sin is death - does that mean there is no hell? Or does it mean sinners die and then suffer these torments? Or are you saying that while we're still alive our external environment matches our inner state, like a heaven and hell on earth kind of thing?

Just when I thought I was beginning to understand it too!

Does anybody else understand who might be able to explain it more clearly?

Do i detect a hint of sarcasm? often when people ask that question especially on this forum, it is to with winning an argument, so if you wanted actual clarification then that is different. Going by your track record on the thread here though you don't want clarification of anything I am saying lol.

I don't blame you for thinking that - when people ask a question it's often to try to set a trap, but honestly I'm done arguing and now I'm really curious. It seriously took me by surprise that people who believe in God and Satan and Heaven don't believe in a hell where sinners suffer eternally. I tried googling "the wages of sin", but so far I can't find anything that actually explains what it means, other than saying sinners suffer a spiritual death which is separation from God. I had always understood that sinners suffer in hell eternally.

knight31, as I am a Christian, I appreciate that you are trying to spread the love of Jesus... but you should probably try to SHOW his love while doing it. Just saying.

So, yeah, God bless.

Originally Posted by Alric

Only in your little fantasy world is science turning against evolution. Evolution has pretty much been considered fact for the last 50 years, and all scientist accepts it and there is a ton of evidence to prove it, and I keep naming all the evidence and you just totally ignore what I say.

Even in my textbooks the evolutionary theory was only considered as a perspective about explanations for certain adaptions such as hunting and gathering tendencies. No textbook ever tried to explain how we evolved from jellyfish. Those books are for little kids that like to look at pictures who haven't learnt to read. They aren't journals or proper sources of information, they are made by artists. All those pictures of monkey man were drawn by artists who have vivid imaginations that want children to start believing in evolution but there's no science behind it.

And I can see you are not involved in the scientific community nor have access to journals, or you would flat out respect that not all scientist are evolutionist.

I already explained this, there is genetic disorders where you can have extra chromosomes and things of that nature. So it is a proven fact that a mutation can cause dna to change and be more complex. DNA with an extra chromosome would be more complex.

that's not added complexity that's actually a repetition of a chromosome. No new dna was added in that example. Try again? Give me one example of how mutations add dna information and complexity, and repetition of existing chromosomes doesn't qualify.

I already proved that dna can change, you are just ignoring the facts.

You haven't proved it until you have given an example of it.

Again evolution explains how life advanced from single cell organisms to the more complex ones we have today, it doesn't explain how the earth got created, or how life started. Those are different theories.

So your theory of evolution can't explain how life started? It other words you theory doesn't explain anything and doesn't work.

Exactly, colds and flus and viruses that change and adapt are evolving. They are just more evidence that evolution is in fact correct and accurate.

Incorrect it only shows how the environment activates and de-activates the genetics that are already present in the organism.

how we get different breeds of dogs and how the bacteria changed over time in that experiment.

getting different breeds of dogs, is just what happens when the dns and genetics interact and mix, it doesn't say anything about how the genetics got that way. If you take two breeds or dog and they have a puppy, that isn't adding any dna information, that's taking two types of genetics and adding them together. duh.

You are a poor judge of math and that has been shown already.

If you think mutations can change, evolve a jellyfish into a human over any amount of time, make the dna complexity and add something, you are not only a poor judge of maths and probability but overall incapable of thinking straight.

Everything is made up of elements but that isn't what you said. You said brick and wood was an element and they are not. Look up brick on the periodic table, it isn't there.

bricks are made up of elements and atoms.

The theory of evolution doesn't require a beginning.

yeah it does, otherwise you are saying that there was no cause of it. haha.

Just like the theory of gravity doesn't need to explain how gravity came to exist for us to know things are attracted to each other.

the theory of gravity is not complete but it's true that if you drop a ball it will fall towards the ground and so on. Your theory of evolution does not even follow anything that can be observed or known, so it's not in the same ballpark. A virus doesn't add to it's dna or complexity it's genetics are merely activated or de-activated as it adapts, it lives and dies with the same genetics. It couldn't gain extra dna and turn into a fish or plant matter even because it doesn't have the dna for it to be something different than what it is. Your theory doesn't make any sense period. I guess you haven't read Darwin's works on 'difficulties'. Difficulties as in the impossibility of explaining something incredibly complex like a cell in our body how it could arrange itself to be as complex as it is without an intelligent designer.

There is like 5 pages of me explaining it to you, you are just failing to grasp the concept.

You haven't even given me one example of how mutations do what you claim they can do, which is to turn us into humans from monkeys, or worse, from jelly fish to elephants, tiger's, bears, and giraffes, and all the other species just from bacteria in the ocean is impossible. How could the environment cause DNA to add complexity to itself without anyone designing anything?

You're right, Joanna, there are some people who mix in ideas like reincarnation and purgatory into Christianity. The large majority of Christians do not believe in those things, however, since they aren't even mentioned in the Bible.

Since I believe in the Bible, I also believe in Satan, but I must agree that the whole "the devil made me do it" excuse you mentioned is, indeed, utter crap. Luckily, I have never actually encountered someone who has said that, though I have heard of it.

Originally Posted by Jacob528491

knight31, as I am a Christian, I appreciate that you are trying to spread the love of Jesus... but you should probably try to SHOW his love while doing it. Just saying.

So, yeah, God bless.

I hate fake Christians. They are worse than atheists.

jesus-finger.jpg

Actually, I am a christian.

Originally Posted by Jacob528491

Actually, I am a christian.

Well then act like one.

Kind of ironic you're saying that, but I'll try.

Originally Posted by Jacob528491

You're right, Joanna, there are some people who mix in ideas like reincarnation and purgatory into Christianity. The large majority of Christians do not believe in those things, however, since they aren't even mentioned in the Bible.

Since I believe in the Bible, I also believe in Satan, but I must agree that the whole "the devil made me do it" excuse is mentioned is, indeed, utter crap. Luckily, I have never actually encountered someone who has said that, though I have heard of it.

Ah, whereas I believe that the Bible is a set of books written by humans, and they got some things wrong and some things very right. It's the figuring out which is which that is the challenge.

Originally Posted by Jacob528491

Kind of ironic you're saying that, but I'll try.

You mean the same kind of irony of you telling me to act more loving yeah?

you tell me to act more loving I'll tell you to act more christian.

That's fair isn't it?

Criticize idea's, not people.

We actually talked about the book written by humans thing in my bible class last year. The teacher (one of the coolest teachers ever) mentioned something called "dual authorship". It basically means that, while it's true that humans actually wrote the contents of the Bible, God inspired what they wrote. As the teacher put it, it was as if God "breathed" the concepts into them, while each individual author wrote in their own style. That's why it says all Scripture is "God-breathed" in 2 Timothy 3, as well as other places. A lot of the time, when people say a part of the Bible is incorrect, they usually misinterpreted it, or took it literally when it was meant to be figurative, or vice versa. Then again, it's the overall message that's really important.

Sorry, kind of started rambling.

Originally Posted by knight31

You mean the same kind of irony of you telling me to act more loving yeah?

you tell me to act more loving I'll tell you to act more christian.

That's fair isn't it?

Criticize idea's, not people.

You literally started this thread to criticize people who needed to be shown God's love instead.

"I have no idea what's going on." - Towelie

Originally Posted by Jacob528491

You literally started this thread to criticize people who needed to be shown God's love instead.

No, I literally didn't. And it's not about me even. This thread is generally doing what I wanted it to do, discussing about beliefs. An even Alric does not attempt to tell me of my errors and such, and he is not even a christian, so you are behind him in terms of your level of Christianity. In other words Alric responded in a more christian way than you have, even though he doesn't even believe in it. Believing in the bible or becoming a bible scholar doesn't automatically get you ahead of atheist. It's pretty bad not believing in god, but there is worse insults than that. One you just committed a minute ago.
Eg implying I'm not loving enough, or that I don't show people enough love ect. That's a pretty awful statement to make about someone who is a saying they are a christian which makes it double hypocritical. You know how much I hate hypocrisy? Infact real Christians don't say that about others full stop. So you have really put your foot in it. What's with all the numbers after your name anyway? This is like your 17th post on this forum who are you.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

"I have no idea what's going on." - Towelie

towlie.jpg

Originally Posted by knight31

No, I literally didn't. And it's not about me even. This thread is generally doing what I wanted it to do, discussing about beliefs. An even Alric does not attempt to tell me of my errors and such, and he is not even a christian, so you are behind him in terms of your level of Christianity. In other words Alric responded in a more christian way than you have, even though he doesn't even believe in it. Believing in the bible or becoming a bible scholar doesn't automatically make you a christian, it's not going to be that easy.



towlie.jpg

You're right, that doesn't make me a christian. The fact that I have accepted Jesus as my Savior and I am one of his children makes me a Christian. If the same is true for you, then good. I will just keep on loving you and everyone else on this site like He does. Good night, and may God remind you every day of his love for you.

If you go to google scholar which searches for scholarly work and search evolution you get 3,960,000 results. You search for creationism and you get 30,000. The reason there is 132 times more work on evolution than creationism, is because evolution is actual science and creationism is junk science. You will find similar results no matter where you search, in fact if you were to search for only peer review articles the number of stuff written about creationism would probably drop to almost nothing.

In summary, you are flat out lying. You know lying is a sin in the christian religion right? Pretty much all scientists in the field of biology agree with evolution, and all text books have evolution in it and it has been taught for the last 50 years. No scientist takes creationism seriously at all. There is no point even arguing with you because we all know that evolution is mainstream science and creationism is a joke no one takes seriously. I am not sure why you feel the need to lie about it, and pretend it is the other way around.

I have already explained how evolution works, and given you several examples, and given you evidence for it. The fact you keep claiming I have not given any of that shows you are either stupid and can't understand anything, or you are just lying again. Or maybe you are just in denial.

Also you do realize that all dna is repeating don't you? DNA is made up of the chemicals adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine. The difference between a simplest possible DNA structure and the most complex is the difference of the order and combination of those four chemicals. When you say that adding a new sequence to DNA isn't making it more complex, because you are just repeating something already there, you are showing you have no idea what you are talking about.

It is like computer code that is all 1's and 0's. If you add more 1's and 0's that isn't anything new but the result is more complex. World of Warcraft is more complex that a program that says HI when you turn it on, but they are both made from 1's and 0's. Just like all DNA is made from those four chemicals. Just adding more sequences of those chemicals does in fact make it more complex.

Alric, you forgot to wish everyone a good night and sweet dreams - it would have been an appropriate continuation of the current spirit of this thread at this point. Tsk tsk.

Well, since you did not, I shall: good night everyone. Goodnight, Alric. Goodnight, Darkmatters. Goodnight, knight31. Goodnight, Jacob528491. Goodnight, debrajane. Goodnight, Original Poster. Goodnight, Universal Mind. Goodnight, Carousoul. Goodnight, DV.