Forums / Miscellaneous Discussions / Did Jesus Exist ?

What does evolution not explain?  Not admit?  Try us, you either read a pretty bad book on evolution, or didn't read it all.

well, gothrim, that's better/righter than what i wrote :-)

but you get what i mean (explaining those things in a foreign langauge gets difficult sometimes) ...

I read that book 3 times! and once again your trying to blame it on something, see we never accept the other persons side its just in are nature you guys will just keep blaming it on something while so will we so let us end this discussion NOW.

ok one thing that you need to explain is the big bang if it created all life then what created it?

the big bang theory is what make evolution a theory because like mushasjii said:

(and the big bang-theory is still under discussion (although nobody has a reasonable better explanation atm), too many unknowns)

it has to many unknowns

God has even more unknowns. lol

It's easy for a man to explain things that they don't clearly know yet by pointing at "God." "God did this. God did that. There is nothing he can't do, etc." There will always be things that we don't clearly know. Human simply can't know and explain everything and that is one of the reason why there are believers in the existance of "God."

I question you: Who give god this power to do everything, who created god himself? God just appeared out of nowhere? If he can do everything, why can't he make this world a world of pure good? And why doesn't he punish me while I'm typing this for denying his existance?

I'll tell you what, if god can hear my thought, (he can if he truly is "God"). If he can create an event that will break my leg and miraculously heal it fully later within 24 hours, I'll believe that he exist and will become one of the believer (Again, he can if he truly is God). Talk to you later in 24 hours :)

first off read the bible. second God was has existed since ever none created him hes letting us thinks like this if you read the bible you would understand my point of view. Binh he wont break your leg because he wants you to believe in him without him having to do anything, it called faith and there are many many historical documents that point to him existing just Google search it.

because God commend men to write it thats why so it was basically god writing but done by the hand of men

OMGWTFCOOKIES!

you know i kinda think that was partly right. and what other holy books?

and uh what i meant about the documents pointing to him existing it was actually jesus not God

and what other holy books?  (i'm sorry but this is a silly question ...)

i'm pretty sure you've heard about the koran? or Bhudda as Bihn said?

so the greek and the egyptians, etc didn't write about their gods? (they are a lot older then your biblical god, so they have higher authority according to you ...  you're worshipping the wrong dude)

"first off read the bible"

I have.  I was raised Methodist.

"second God was has existed since ever none created him hes letting us thinks like this if you read the bible you would understand my point of view"

My point was actually why you reject the idea that what came before the big bang is eternal, while you accept God can be.

"it called faith and there are many many historical documents that point to him existing just Google search it."

Google search it?  That topic has already been discused in the past seven pages of this thread.

"and if you wrote it a long time ago and the bible wasn't written then yeah they would probably be true."

Um... there are religions older than Christianity.  Say, classical Greek mythology.  If being "old" is proof then we should believe in minotaurs and Zeus, shouldn't we?  Or Isis, or Thor, or prehistoric tribal gods that have long been forgotten?  I'm not quite sure what you mean by timeline.  It is common logic that the first thing that is spoken is not always the right thing.

Christianity is probably the first monotheism religion but it is by far not the first religion.

actaully the big bang is a reoccurring ongoing thing ...

we are now expanding ... later, the universe will shrink again (like i said, read steven hawkins)

and you probably say the world is only 6000 years old? (christianity was first ... are you insane?)

you are saying that the egyptians hierogliphs are not about their gods?

you are saying that the carvings on the inca-temples are not about their gods?

and if your bible would be the word of god ... then why didn't 'your savior' wrote it himself? (instead of someone else about 80 years later, 120 years and 200 years?)

and you see nothing wrong in the fact that so many years later somebody else, who wasn't even alive during jesus's lifetimen writes down what he thinks to be true?    you see nothing wrong in the fact that the romans 'assembled' the bible (300 years later)?  you see nothing wrong in the fact that similar texts (written by other 'apostels') did not make the cut?  it's all divine?

come on man ... get serious

I know tons of stuff about Christianity. It's that stuff that made me atheist. The more you know about it the less it holds up. That's why I went on about faith earlier, because it is essentially the technique of avoiding evidence that contradicts your first idea. Jesus never came back either. That's just a story told about him just like it was told about dozens of other ancient celebrities. He was only the MOST RECENT one to plagiarise that story too.

BTW the bible says the first monotheistic religion was Judaism. BTW even that is incorrect =p. I had a vision to tell you all of this, Zryike and my testament is backed by countless historical evidences. Now all I need is a church to make cash off this and to get countries convince their people that we must go to war in the name of...oh wait... I won't be able to manipulate people or con them out of their money...I guess it won't be a religion afterall.

the most widely seen universe idea is that its still expanding but will start slowing, then itl stop, then itl contract back to where it exploded then expand and contract again and again, im not sure bout the "The Big Rip"

dark matter is essentially anti matter. what i mean is normal matter makes up a tiny percentage of the universe i.e suns planets honey-badgers and suchlike while dark matter is the stuff in between. Just trying to clear uop a bit but this is all from my physics class so it may be a bit flawed

yeh was trying to find out how to put it down :P shuda looked it up on the net 1st

During recent decades, new scientific evidence from many scientific disciplines such as cosmology, physics, biology, "artificial intelligence" research, and others have caused scientists to begin questioning Darwinism's central tenet of natural selection and studying the evidence supporting it in greater detail.

Yet public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted that Darwin's theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The public has been assured that all known evidence supports Darwinism and that virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true.

The scientists on this list dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction to the second. Since Discovery Institute launched this list in 2001 over 700 scientists have courageously stepped forward to sign their names. The list is growing and includes scientists from the US National Academy of Sciences, Russian, Hungarian and Czech National Academies, as well as from universities such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and others.

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

check out this page: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

Like most creationist/ID sites, the articles only serve the purpose to try and shoot up red flags on a small case study of experiments, throwing in propganda phrases like "scientists only see what they want to see."

For example, this article tries to punch a hole in the moth theory by having one person state natural selection might not have been a driving force at all.  Great.  So what is their testable explanation?  Or perhaps they'd rather just leave you hanging in the air with a question since there really isn't all that much actual evidence to back them up.

i watched a debate with christians vs humanistic.

there were alot of good arguments from both sides, but one thing i find rather weird is that humanistic can't explane the feelings like love and the free will.

they believe that we are all on some kind of autopilot where we just do things to survive. but i have a choise weather if i would like to live or not.

most people should have a feeling that there is more out there then just material and things you can see. and this feeling can't evolution describe.