elyspears>

'3. All fossil evidence.
You cannot demonstrate that any animal that was fossilized ever had any
offspring. Thus, we cannot possibly know whether or not they passed on
any genetic traits. We also cannot know whether it was probable that
they did or did not reproduce. Thus, whatever animals that are
fossilized cannot be used to determine what animals were like in the
distant past. A fossil merely shows us that ONE animal that died at some
point. Aside from some minor details about biomechanics, it cannot tell
you any more information than that. I think the flood offers a much
better account for fossils that paleontology.'
________________________________________________________________

This is the weakest statement I have seen you post.

A single fossil shows that a perticular creature did in fact exist.
Many fossils of the same creature shows that multipule examples of that
creature did in fact exist. Correlation between that creature and the
closest current example of that creature show that said creature did in
fact produce offspring as a species. A comparison of fossils from
diferent epochs can indeed give an indication that evolutanary processes
(while not proven) can account for changes in some types of species.
Therefore the fossile records are much more indicative of the general
validatiy of evolution that not.

Interesting. Abra, for all the scientific "ranting and waxing eloquent"
you've done, I've yet to see you prove that God (capital "G") does not
exist.

Sheila wrote:
"Interesting. Abra, for all the scientific "ranting and waxing eloquent"
you've done, I've yet to see you prove that God (capital "G") does not
exist."

Why would I want to?

Well, it only seems fair, since you're constantly demanding (in one way
or another) that people provide proof of His existence.

Sheila wrote:
“Well, it only seems fair, since you're constantly demanding (in one way
or another) that people provide proof of His existence.”

I merely ask why I should believe that the Bible was written by *any*
god (capital ‘G’ or lowercase ‘g’).

I see absolutely no reason to believe that the Bible was written by a
God.

On the contrary I can list a myriad of motivations why men would have
made up the stories.

I also see a myriad of contradictions that are not consistent with an
‘all-knowing’ god.

I also see a myriad of contradictions that are not consistent with an
‘all-loving’ god.

I also see the HUGE contradiction of a God who’s love is supposedly
‘unconditional’ in a book that is filled from cover-to-cover with
CONDITIONS.

Thou shalt do this,…

Thou shalt not do that,…

Only those who accept me as their lord and savoir are welcome to my
‘unconditional’ love.

And don’t forget to get on your knees and repent your sins before you
come to me!

For I am a jealous God! Thou shalt have no other God before ME!

What happened to the unconditional ‘all-loving’?

The Bible has destroyed itself with its myriad of inconsistencies. It
doesn’t leave much for anyone else to do.

"I merely ask why I should believe that the Bible was written by *any*
god (capital ‘G’ or lowercase ‘g’)."

I don't know anyone who has said the Bible was "written" by God. In any
case, no one's trying to force you to believe anything, but I suppose I
could turn around and ask you, 'Why shouldn't you?' Better yet, my
question would be, since you came from a religious background to begin
with, what event in your life caused you to denounce Him? That's a
pretty serious thing to do.

"I see absolutely no reason to believe that the Bible was written by a
God."

Me either. I certainly have never said the Bible was written by Him.

"On the contrary I can list a myriad of motivations why men would have
made up the stories."

If you're trying to convince yourself or anyone else He doesn't exist,
sure...you could write a never-ending list, I suppose.

"I also see a myriad of contradictions that are not consistent with an
‘all-knowing’ god."

I surmise you see contradictions because that's what you want to see.
I'd be willing to bet if you looked at the "big picture" and didn't take
things out of context that those seeming "contradictions" would lessen
significantly.

"I also see a myriad of contradictions that are not consistent with an
‘all-loving’ god."

I assume you are referring to varying degrees of suffering that occurs
in the world? I've asked before and I'll ask again...where does it say
in the Bible that God ever promised us a rose garden here on this Earth?

"I also see the HUGE contradiction of a God who’s love is supposedly
‘unconditional’ in a book that is filled from cover-to-cover with
CONDITIONS."

There are NO "conditions" to God's love or grace. The only "condition"
that God requires is that you accept that Jesus Christ died for your
sins. Considering what He went through for us, I don't think that's too
much to ask.

We are saved by grace, not by works, "lest anyone should boast."

Thou shalt do this Thou shalt not do that....

They are admonitions and good advice for living a life as free as
possible from the consequences of sin...they are not requirements for
gaining eternal life.

"Only those who accept me as their lord and savoir are welcome to my
‘unconditional’ love."

No...only those who accept Him are welcome to eternal life. And what's
so bad about that? You have on the one hand an offer for eternal life
and peace and serenity and a life free from pain and suffering and
streets paved with gold, etc., and on the other hand you have a
forever-burning pyre and endless pain and suffering. (assuming you
believe these ARE the choices) and would opt for hell? Geez!! And I
thought *I* was stubborn!

"And don’t forget to get on your knees and repent your sins before you
come to me!"

You sound as though you're being asked to worship a human being.

"For I am a jealous God! Thou shalt have no other God before ME!"

You cannot serve two masters.

"What happened to the unconditional ‘all-loving’?"

Nothing; He still loves you.

"The Bible has destroyed itself with its myriad of inconsistencies. It
doesn’t leave much for anyone else to do."

It's offering you eternal life and happiness based on ONE simple
"condition." And you are completely free to choose it or to turn it
down. Sounds like a pretty damned good deal to me!

I was raised in church from the day I was born, practically. I cannot
imagine, though, being so stubborn (and boy, am I ever stubborn) to turn
down such a wonderful offer based on the fact that I didn't like all of
the aspects of it.

All contracts come with conditions. And, FYI, there is NO such thing as
"unconditional love."

JeanC>

We have 'heaven' and all that goes with it... Without condition.

Only when we limit ourselves to a single small book do we also limit
ourselves to the contract specified in said book.

As with any other holy book I will respect its contents and your right
to live by that contract. However as I will not limit myself to the
bindings of that book. I have seen other books from the same source and
have found within them the same self-evident truths. Therefore I will
not limit myself to a small contract when all has been granted me by the
simple act of faith.

I don't recall anyone saying they had to limit themselves to that book.

Sheila wrote:
“Better yet, my question would be, since you came from a religious
background to begin with, what event in your life caused you to denounce
Him? That's a pretty serious thing to do.”

I’ve been meaning to post my story in the thread that Invisible started.
I actually wrote the story out, but it would require about 6 posts to
post it and I didn’t want to hog up the thread.

Oh, by the way, I never denounced god. What I denounced was the idea
that the Bible has anything to do with god.

Sheila wrote:
“All contracts come with conditions. And, FYI, there is NO such thing as
unconditional love."

Not true. The god I know now offers pure unconditional love. There is
nothing a person can do to be rejected by the love of god. You can be
Hitler, you can be Eric Harris or Dylan Kiebold, you can be Ossama Bin
Laden, hell you can even be George W. Bush, and god will love you
unconditionally. And when you die you will go to the very same place
that Mother Teresa, Jesus Christ, and Martin Luther King Jr. went. No
conditions, no contracts, no nothing. God’s love is unconditional.

AdventureBegins,

I would love to see some prophecies in another religious book, that
actually came true. Until that day, I will put all of my faith into the
one Holy book that has definitive proof of God: fullfilled prophecies.

I’ve been meaning to post my story in the thread that Invisible started.
I actually wrote the story out, but it would require about 6 posts to
post it and I didn’t want to hog up the thread.

Oh, by the way, I never denounced god. What I denounced was the idea
that the Bible has anything to do with god.

But the Bible has EVERYTHING to do with God. You are right..the Bible
has nothing to do with a "god." The Bible has everything to do with THE
God, however.

Not true. The god I know now offers pure unconditional love. There is
nothing a person can do to be rejected by the love of god.

I should have clarified. Yes, God's LOVE is unconditonal. That is very
true.

"You can be Hitler, you can be Eric Harris or Dylan Kiebold, you can be
Ossama Bin Laden..."

Yes...

"...hell you can even be George W. Bush...

Now, that's stretching it a bit, don't you think? hehhe...

"...and god will love you unconditionally. And when you die you will go
to the very same place that Mother Teresa, Jesus Christ, and Martin
Luther King Jr. went. No conditions, no contracts, no nothing. God’s
love is unconditional."

Yes, and I didn't mean that *GOD's* love is unconditional...I meant that
love in general is not unconditional. What I meant that was conditional
is that the way to the Father (God) (and Heaven) is through His Son
Jesus Christ. It is the ONE condition of the contract, a simple
acceptance that Jesus Christ died as an atonement for your sins.

I was saying that no matter whether or not you choose to believe that,
that God will still love you.

When I was speaking of love being conditional I was referring to human
love.

Khrisna foretold christ. Khrisna foretole mohamad. He also foretole
one to come after mohamad.

Perhaps the reason you did not post seriously in the threads I started
on Abraham, Khrisna, Zoroaster, Mohamad etc... Is because you have not
read their books. If you had read them you would know.

They are all from a group of prohpets whose truths are self-evident.

And if the begats are true they all share the same bloodline.

The line of Abraham. And if Adam was a direct ancestor of Abraham they
are all direct seed of Adam. AS WAS JESUS.

AdventureBegins:

"Correlation between that creature and the
closest current example of that creature show that said creature did in
fact produce offspring as a species. A comparison of fossils from
diferent epochs can indeed give an indication that evolutanary processes
"

This is precisely what I am disputing. There is no correlation between
fossils and the animals living today unless the fossil is of exactly an
animal that has been living in the last 7000 years. You cannot translate
fossils into genetics, and genetics is the only possible evidence that
counts in the evolution debate, because you cannot demonstrate that
whatever particular animal it is that became fossilized ever produced
offspring. Further, you can't compare fossils from different epochs
because there has only been less than one epoch of existence for the
earth. In order to accept a fossil as a correlation between species now
and prior species, you'd have to agree that the bones in the ground give
you a good indication of whatever animals lived. We cannot possibly know
whether that is true or not except in the case that the animal was
fossilized in the last 7000 years.

I see your point. Really, what you are saying if that IF gradualism is
true... THEN fossils provide evidence. I am saying that fossils cannot
be used to support gradualism. Gradualism has to be true FIRST and THEN
fossils become important. You make a good point, but it does not
eliminate my claim.

Abracadabra:

Why do evolutionists always resort to this? Again, you provide no
evidence for your claims, you just state them. You say you have evidence
for evolution, but you don't supply it. At least I am providing detailed
arguments for what I am claiming.

Secondly, you must have misread my post about Quantum Loop Gravity,
because I did respond to that and pointed out how it is little more than
a religious belief with no obervational foundation. String theory is
even worse and almost all credible physicists that I know reject both
QLG and string theory.

Secondly, I am only 21 but that does not mean that I cannot think
deeply. I am open to all arguments, but I believe I have answered your
replies at every account. I agree with you that we're not making any
progress (rarely do debates about this ever produce progress). Evolution
is a religion like all others. My beliefs are likewise a religion. I
adopt a religion because I cannot explain everything. Evolutionsists do
the same. Accusing me of being narrow minded because of my age is only
showing narrowmindedness on your part. Regardless of my age, I let the
logical, philosophical, and scientific analysis speak for itself.

Finally, why is it that you believe skepticism is important, if not for
faith that you'll be more correct by being skeptical. All people,
regardless of how vehemently they deny it, believe in some things merely
on faith. If you dogmatically assert than nothing should be accepted on
faith, then that very dogmatic assertion represents a faith-held belief
of yours. I know this is very recursive and difficult to sort out, but
it is nevertheless true. As humans, with limited ability to evaluate the
world in the finite amount of time we live, we have no choice but to
accept some things by faith. Even if that "thing" we accept on faith is
the belief that we should always be skeptical.

Ely wrote:
“Evolution is a religion like all others”

Whatever.

Evolution is not a religion.

It is a science based theory that fits the facts closer than any other
claims so far.

If something better comes along (something that fits better) I will
accept it after some study because I strive to keep an open mind.

AdventureBegins,

Can you link something? I have posted fullfilled Biblical prophecies.
If Krishna made prophecies that were fullfilled, I would like to read
them myself.

Then read them.

They are not hard to find. I do not post links. I do not take my
information from web pages as they are mere words with no substance.

I read actual books.

They can be found on line but as we both know the electronic medium is
very easy to edit and change and anyone with a computer can post a web
page with many errors in it.

I firmly believe in independant investigation of truths. If I tell you
something it is not that same as you checking it out for yourself.

AdventureBegins,

Okay, so they don't exist. Gotcha.

http://www.gosai.com/krishna-talk/58-jesus-in-the-vedas.html
------------------------------------------------------------
Considering the above anomalies and the fact that no edition of the
Bhavisya Purana can be found prior to the British period in India, we
can only deduce that the Bhavisya Purana was tampered with by the
Christian missionaries who added the chapter on Jesus. Their motive is
obvious - to make the personality of Jesus acceptable to the Hindus, in
order to convert them to Christianity.
------------------------------------------------------------

So the Hindus believe that their scriptures were altered under the
British rule to add Jesus.

I have no issues quoting or linking, I trust in the printed word to
speak for itself.