Welcome to Gaia! ::


[DAzel]!


Because they both deny that Jesus is god and that his atonement is not satisfactory they are not Christians. Roman Catholicism believes that we are saved by our good works with the help of grace granted by Jesus, Again implying that atonement is not satisfactory hence non-Christian.


This is incorrect. Good works are rewarded after death, but they don't grant salvation. The reason good works are encouraged is that it is foolish to say that we follow God and not live as an example for others.
Jehovah's Witnesses believe-
• Jesus opened the door for us to earn our salvation.
• Members of their church are the church mentioned in NT.
• God is One Person
• Jesus is a Created being: Michael the archangel who became a man.
• Salvation is by keeping the commandments and being in their Organization.
• Do not believe Jesus was resurrected.
• The Bible, Studies in the Scriptures, presently the Watchtower and Awake Magazines are to be used for authoritative doctrine.

Well this is not all true. Jesus did open the way for salvation, Jehovah is 1 God, Salvation is by Jehovah ALONE, YES Jesus was resurrected, in fact he was the first one to be resurrected to heaven. The Bible is the authority.
One CAN'T believe in evolution and the Bible. If you are true blue to the Bible, not a faker, then you KNOW that the world was literally created in seven days. That makes the world about 6000 years old. Evolution could not have happened in six days. And may I ask you this: Could the human body, with all its intricate parts and organs truly have been the result of evolution...I was just thinking about how we can pick up two different waves (sound and light)...at the same time! It sounds so trivial, but that's amazing! Only God could have made humans, not Chance (the name of the god of evolutionists).
I mean six days...on the seventh day God rested...
LaDemonta

Personally, I believe in Christianity. I believe that the Bible is true. Because of that, I believe in Creation and not evolution. I know evolution is taught in most schools, and widely accepted, but does accepted mean it's true?


Isshunkan
No, it doesn't, but the Theory of Evolution is not just widely accepted, there is an overwhelming amount of data in favour of it, making it the most likely explanation for our existance to date.
Yes, there are pieces missing, and it is entirely possible that the Theory of Evolution as we know it will be proven wrong at some point, but it is a scientific fact that organisms evolve and adapt to their environment.


The principal steps en route to the origin of life, as envisioned by evolutionary theory, are (1) the existence of the right primitive atmosphere and (2) a concentration in the oceans of an organic soup of “simple” molecules necessary for life. (3) From these come proteins and nucleotides (complex chemical compounds) that (4) combine and acquire a membrane, and thereafter (5) they develop a genetic code and start making copies of themselves. Are these steps in accord with the available facts?

In 1953 Stanley Miller passed an electric spark through an “atmosphere” of hydrogen, methane, ammonia and water vapor. This produced some of the many amino acids that exist and that are the building blocks of proteins. However, he got just 4 of the 20 amino acids needed for life to exist. More than 30 years later, scientists were still unable experimentally to produce all the 20 necessary amino acids under conditions that could be considered plausible.

How likely is it that the amino acids thought to have formed in the atmosphere would drift down and form an “organic soup” in the oceans? Not likely at all. The same energy that would split the simple compounds in the atmosphere would even more quickly decompose any complex amino acids that formed. Interestingly, in his experiment of passing an electric spark through an “atmosphere,” Miller saved the four amino acids he got only because he removed them from the area of the spark. Had he left them there, the spark would have decomposed them.
MinorHeaven
One CAN'T believe in evolution and the Bible. If you are true blue to the Bible, not a faker, then you KNOW that the world was literally created in seven days.

Unless that part of the Bible wasn't MEANT to be interpreted LITERALLY, in which case you're wrong. Why does a non-literal interpretation make someone a "faker"?

Quote:
That makes the world about 6000 years old.

No, the world being created in seven days doesn't lead to that estimate. Young Earth Creationism, and I'll ask you what you're smoking if you believe all Christians adhere to this belief, adds up a lot of things, including all the "begatting", to get at roughly the 6k estimate.

Quote:
And may I ask you this: Could the human body, with all its intricate parts and organs truly have been the result of evolution...

Yes.

Quote:
Only God could have made humans, not Chance (the name of the god of evolutionists).

Unless humans could have evolved without a higher power and, at any rate, the bit about Chance being the "god" of evolutionists is utter rubbish.
Tlara

In 1953 Stanley Miller passed an electric spark through an “atmosphere” of hydrogen, methane, ammonia and water vapor....


I think it is important to point out that geoscientists today doubt that the conditions Miller created in his laboratory matched the actual conditions of the early earth.

So yes, the Urey/Miller experiment doesn't prove the theory of evolution, however it doesn't disprove it either.
Only one nit-pick.

[DAzel]!

Christianity (generally speaking Protestant theology) believes-
...
• The Bible alone is to be used for authoritative doctrine.


Catholicism would disagree on that
defenestrated
MinorHeaven
One CAN'T believe in evolution and the Bible. If you are true blue to the Bible, not a faker, then you KNOW that the world was literally created in seven days.

Unless that part of the Bible wasn't MEANT to be interpreted LITERALLY, in which case you're wrong. Why does a non-literal interpretation make someone a "faker"?

Quote:
That makes the world about 6000 years old.

No, the world being created in seven days doesn't lead to that estimate. Young Earth Creationism, and I'll ask you what you're smoking if you believe all Christians adhere to this belief, adds up a lot of things, including all the "begatting", to get at roughly the 6k estimate.




There are some religious groups that teach that God created everything in six 24-hour days. But that is not what the Bible says.

Genesis 1:3-31 tells how God prepared the already existing earth for human habitation. It says that this was done during a period of six days, but it does not say that these were 24-hour days. It is not unusual for a person to refer to his “grandfather’s day,” meaning that one’s entire lifetime. So, too, the Bible often uses the term “day” to describe an extended period of time. (Compare 2 Peter 3:8.) Thus the ‘days’ of Genesis chapter 1 could reasonably be thousands of years long.

Scientists have learned that matter is a concentrated form of energy. This is demonstrated with the explosion of nuclear weapons. Astrophysicist Josip Kleczek states: “Most and possibly all elementary particles may be created by materialization of energy.”—The Universe (Boston, 1976), Vol. 11, p. 17.

From where could such energy come? After asking, “Who has created these things [the stars and planets]?”, the Bible states regarding Jehovah God, “Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one of them is missing.” (Isa. 40:26) So God himself is the Source of all the “dynamic energy” that was needed to create the universe.

The facts disagree with such a conclusion: (1) Light from the Andromeda nebula can be seen on a clear night in the northern hemisphere. It takes about 2,000,000 years for that light to reach the earth, indicating that the universe must be at least millions of years old. (2) End products of radioactive decay in rocks in the earth testify that some rock formations have been undisturbed for billions of years.

Genesis 1:3-31 is not discussing the original creation of matter or of the heavenly bodies. It describes the preparation of the already existing earth for human habitation. This included creation of the basic kinds of vegetation, marine life, flying creatures, land animals, and the first human pair. All of this is said to have been done within a period of six “days.” However, the Hebrew word translated “day” has a variety of meanings, including ‘a long time; the time covering an extraordinary event.’ (Old Testament Word Studies, Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1978, W. Wilson, p. 109) The term used allows for the thought that each “day” could have been thousands of years in length.
Isshunkan
Tlara

In 1953 Stanley Miller passed an electric spark through an “atmosphere” of hydrogen, methane, ammonia and water vapor....


I think it is important to point out that geoscientists today doubt that the conditions Miller created in his laboratory matched the actual conditions of the early earth.

So yes, the Urey/Miller experiment doesn't prove the theory of evolution, however it doesn't disprove it either.


However, if it is assumed that amino acids somehow reached the oceans and were protected from the destructive ultraviolet radiation in the atmosphere, what then? Hitching explained: “Beneath the surface of the water there would not be enough energy to activate further chemical reactions; water in any case inhibits the growth of more complex molecules.”8

So once amino acids are in the water, they must get out of it if they are to form larger molecules and evolve toward becoming proteins useful for the formation of life. But once they get out of the water, they are in the destructive ultraviolet light again! “In other words,” Hitching says, “the theoretical chances of getting through even this first and relatively easy stage [getting amino acids] in the evolution of life are forbidding.”9

Although it commonly is asserted that life spontaneously arose in the oceans, bodies of water simply are not conducive to the necessary chemistry. Chemist Richard Dickerson explains: “It is therefore hard to see how polymerization [linking together smaller molecules to form bigger ones] could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primitive ocean, since the presence of water favors depolymerization [breaking up big molecules into simpler ones] rather than polymerization.”10 Biochemist George Wald agrees with this view, stating: “Spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis.” This means there would be no accumulation of organic soup! Wald believes this to be “the most stubborn problem that confronts us [evolutionists].”11
MinorHeaven
One CAN'T believe in evolution and the Bible. If you are true blue to the Bible, not a faker, then you KNOW that the world was literally created in seven days.


Why can't you believe in both evolution and the Bible? You can just believe that both of them have an equal chance of being right.
Tlara

However, if it is assumed that amino acids somehow reached the oceans and were protected from the destructive ultraviolet radiation in the atmosphere, what then? Hitching explained: “Beneath the surface of the water there would not be enough energy to activate further chemical reactions; water in any case inhibits the growth of more complex molecules.”.....


Are you by any chance quoting someone? An essay or something? It sure seems like the above is part of another text rather than a response to what I said.

Anyway, the above is correct. The origin of life is as of yet unknown and while there are many theories there are problems with each and every one of them.

This however, does yet again not disprove evolution as a whole. Evolution, and by evolution I mean biological evolution, is by definition "a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations". So even if we don't know how it all started, and we are as of yet unsure about the specific mechanisms, evolution as a whole is not affected by these missing pieces of information. Biological Evolution can be demonstrated and historical evidence for it is overwhelming.
Isshunkan


Are you by any chance quoting someone? An essay or something? It sure seems like the above is part of another text rather than a response to what I said.

Anyway, the above is correct. The origin of life is as of yet unknown and while there are many theories there are problems with each and every one of them.

This however, does yet again not disprove evolution as a whole. Evolution, and by evolution I mean biological evolution, is by definition "a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations". So even if we don't know how it all started, and we are as of yet unsure about the specific mechanisms, evolution as a whole is not affected by these missing pieces of information. Biological Evolution can be demonstrated and historical evidence for it is overwhelming.


I am quoting from a book which disects evolution and creaton. I'm sure if we wanted to we could discuss this for years without ever agreeing. That being said I can give you more on the holes in evolution...if you want.
ok i was really lazy and didn't read the last page
i know this topic thing is all about an agumeent ok
ok now i'm on track
now those who beieve you can believe in evelution and creatism both at the smae tim guess what YOU CAN't your just being hypocise (sorry about the spelling).
ok somoe one reply nicele for me and let me think about what i wrote lol
thanks
Tlara
That being said I can give you more on the holes in evolution...if you want.
What "holes," pray tell, are you referring to? And what book are you utilizing? (Considering this is to be a debate, and you have yet to provide sources.)

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum