Religion… What do you think?

Deuteronomy 6:4-12; 16-20:

Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:

5 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:

7 And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.

8 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.

9 And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.

10 And it shall be, when the Lord thy God shall have brought thee into the land which he sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give thee great and goodly cities, which thou buildedst not,

11 And houses full of all good things, which thou filledst not, and wells digged, which thou diggedst not, vineyards and olive trees, which thou plantedst not; when thou shalt have eaten and be full;

12 Then beware lest thou forget the Lord, which brought thee forth out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

Ye shall not tempt the LORD your God, as ye tempted him in Massah.

17 Ye shall diligently keep the commandments of the LORD your God, and his testimonies, and his statutes, which he hath commanded thee.

18 And thou shalt do that which is right and good in the sight of the LORD: that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest go in and possess the good land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers,

19 To cast out all thine enemies from before thee, as the LORD hath spoken.

20 And when thy son asketh thee in time to come, saying, What mean the testimonies, and the statutes, and the judgments, which the LORD our God hath commanded you?

"You are a sinner, is God separate from you?"

I'm not separated from God because of the Sacrifice of Jesus; Jesus is the mediator between God and humanity; without the blood of Jesus there was a rift between God and humanity that only Jesus could fix.

"God anointed men in the Old Testament though they were sinners and not born again."

Anointing the men in the Old Testament was something different from the spiritual separation from God; also, the men of the Old Testament relied upon the Covenant between God, Abraham, Issac, and Jacob; it still took Jesus to redeem even those men.

"The-Spirit is in everyone giving everyone life. If this was taken away we would all be spiritually dead as well as physically dead. Ecc12:7 "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.""

Again, spiritual death is separation from God; this verse could be read as a foreshadowing of Jesus who would bridge the gap; Jesus went into Hades to claim these souls, although souls were separated by a rift in Hades (e.g. the River Styx).

"Seems that there is a correlation between people with a lack of intelligence having a greater dependency to turn to religion when something bad happens instead of figuring it out or taking precaution."

All Christians aren't uneducated; Christians are educated in all fields, including engineering, math, science, archaeology, anthropology, and history.

"Seems that there is a correlation between people with a lack of intelligence having a greater dependency to turn to religion when something bad happens instead of figuring it out or taking precaution."

All Christians aren't uneducated; Christians are educated in all fields, including engineering, math, science, archaeology, anthropology, and history.

@dshipp17:

"Again, spiritual death is separation from God;"

This is a made up idea. I will make one up now.....Soul death = separation from truth.

Now I can invent a Christian doctrine about how Jesus is the truth and unless you have Jesus, your soul is dead.

But in reality your soul is alive.

Again, if your spirit is dead, so are you. Job 34.

Deuteronomy 7:6-9; 12-16; 8:1-6; 9-10:

For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.

7 The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:

8 But because the Lord loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

9 Know therefore that the Lord thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;

Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep, and do them, that the Lord thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers:

13 And he will love thee, and bless thee, and multiply thee: he will also bless the fruit of thy womb, and the fruit of thy land, thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep, in the land which he sware unto thy fathers to give thee.

14 Thou shalt be blessed above all people: there shall not be male or female barren among you, or among your cattle.

15 And the Lord will take away from thee all sickness, and will put none of the evil diseases of Egypt, which thou knowest, upon thee; but will lay them upon all them that hate thee.

16 And thou shalt consume all the people which the Lord thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them: neither shalt thou serve their gods; for that will be a snare unto thee.

All the commandments which I command thee this day shall ye observe to do, that ye may live, and multiply, and go in and possess the land which the Lord sware unto your fathers.

2 And thou shalt remember all the way which the Lord thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or no.

3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live.

4 Thy raiment waxed not old upon thee, neither did thy foot swell, these forty years.

5 Thou shalt also consider in thine heart, that, as a man chasteneth his son, so the Lord thy God chasteneth thee.

6 Therefore thou shalt keep the commandments of the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and to fear him.

A land wherein thou shalt eat bread without scarceness, thou shalt not lack any thing in it; a land whose stones are iron, and out of whose hills thou mayest dig brass.

10 When thou hast eaten and art full, then thou shalt bless the Lord thy God for the good land which he hath given thee.

""Again, spiritual death is separation from God;"

This is a made up idea. I will make one up now.....Soul death = separation from truth."

My phrase is not anything made up and it has a strong basis in Scripture; it's always preached by Christians for good reason. Spiritual death is soul separation from God. Colossians 2:11-13: In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins; John 11:24-25: Martha answered, "I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day." Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die.

Oklahoma’s ‘Witch grandma’ sentenced to 3 consecutive life sentences for child abuse

RIP Aaron Hernandez

@dshipp17:

Thankyou for providing scripture support for your doctrine.

Are people really walking around with dead spirits? Or is it just a figure of speech used to describe a person who is bound for spiritual death?

Deuteronomy 10:12-22:

And now, Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul,

13 To keep the commandments of the Lord, and his statutes, which I command thee this day for thy good?

14 Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the Lord's thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is.

15 Only the Lord had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it is this day.

16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

17 For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:

18 He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment.

19 Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

20 Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God; him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave, and swear by his name.

21 He is thy praise, and he is thy God, that hath done for thee these great and terrible things, which thine eyes have seen.

22 Thy fathers went down into Egypt with threescore and ten persons; and now the Lord thy God hath made thee as the stars of heaven for multitude.

"Thankyou for providing scripture support for your doctrine.

Are people really walking around with dead spirits? Or is it just a figure of speech used to describe a person who is bound for spiritual death?"

You're welcome.

No, spiritual death, in this context actually means that the soul is separate from God; a person is physical (body), soul (mind), and spiritual (consciousness, as in some people saying they have no conscious, meaning that part that gives you the feeling that you're about to do something wrong or bad and precautions you against it, the part people end up not listening to before they're about to commit an act in vengeance or something of the sort, the part where someone puts on a pretense immediately before some display of ego for someone else's consideration); the spirit is what God breathe into Adam and it automatically returns to God upon death.

Nature vs ISIS

Yeah well guess what? The Bible, doesn't agree with our understanding of origins. First of all, it claims that we descended from just one man and woman, during the early moments of the Earth's creation, which completely contradicts scientists findings of evolution and their theories on how the Earth must have formed. Secondly, I'm not even sure if they're being honest with those quotes here, but just because some Noble prize winning genius ( who probably only got his prize by appealing to special people in the committee) say's that the biblical of view of creation from nothing is very highly possible, doesn't mean that they're actually supporting the bible and it's made-up creation stories. The video also assumed that just because something has complex pattern and follows patterns, that it must've been made by an intelligent designer. Again that is just an assumption and an opinion the universe could easily be coincidentally and naturally complex, and that's just it's state. The nature of something, just because our minds can't comprehend its vastness due to our limitations, doesn't mean that a much more intelligent designer with infinite power designed it. People always look in awe as they realize that they're alive and in this vast incinerating and destructive cosmos, but then think about it like this: maybe you are just a special case in the universe, maybe that is just what makes you and this solar system very special, and that's all there is to it. Let's not forget the possibility of life existing out there as well too, we most likely in fact are not the only life forms existing out there. Think about it, if there was another life form out there too, and they got to experience life and all it's complexities, wouldn't they think that they're the only special ones too, favored by their creator. We let our emotions cloud our actual knowledge of reality, and forget that we have no actual definitive proof of a creator god of origin, and really any proof of the metaphysical/supernatural.

Deuteronomy 11:13-17:

And it shall come to pass, if ye shall hearken diligently unto my commandments which I command you this day, to love the Lord your God, and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul,

14 That I will give you the rain of your land in his due season, the first rain and the latter rain, that thou mayest gather in thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil.

15 And I will send grass in thy fields for thy cattle, that thou mayest eat and be full.

16 Take heed to yourselves, that your heart be not deceived, and ye turn aside, and serve other gods, and worship them;

17 And then the Lord's wrath be kindled against you, and he shut up the heaven, that there be no rain, and that the land yield not her fruit; and lest ye perish quickly from off the good land which the Lord giveth you.

“Yeah well guess what? The Bible, doesn't agree with our understanding of origins. First of all, it claims that we descended from just one man and woman, during the early moments of the Earth's creation, which completely contradicts scientists findings of evolution and their theories on how the Earth must have formed.”

Well, first, scientists (we, as I refer to it) have no (complete) understanding for the origins of life, the earth, and the origins of the universe. That's where you're misunderstanding things. The best approximation that scientists have is that earth had a beginning (e.g. and the current model for explaining approximately what that beginning was is the Big Bang Theory); it's a model, not an exact explanation; it's subject to change (e.g. previously, scientists tried to say that the Universe had no beginning, or, the Steady State Theory). The Bible tells today us long before this that the Universe had a beginning; so, plus one for the Bible. Second, scientists have no findings for how the Earth was formed; and they have a latest model that says the Earth (and sun) was formed from the remnants of a now deceased star; however, to show the weakness of this model, scientists have not found the remnants white dwarf of what should be our parent star. Third, evolution is another model; scientists have yet to demonstrate that one type of organism of life form can transform into a completely new type of organism or life form. Therefore, the Bible is not completely contradicting anything that is known for a certainty; so, since the Bible has a +1 one on its side (e.g. that the Universe had a beginning), when objectively looking at what the Bible says and what scientists really know, the scale tips in the Bible's favor. Thus, it still stands that we were descended from Adam and Eve due to no truly existing contradictory, proven evidence. I'm afraid that you're actually stating your misunderstandings and conclusions that you've drawn from those misunderstandings here, basically for things that do not really exist.

“Secondly, I'm not even sure if they're being honest with those quotes here, but just because some Noble prize winning genius ( who probably only got his prize by appealing to special people in the committee) say's that the biblical of view of creation from nothing is very highly possible, doesn't mean that they're actually supporting the bible and it's made-up creation stories.”

Well, this is unsupported speculation that this person got a Noble Prize by appealing to a committee; that is your assertion on the matter, I get; additionally, you have no basis in fact whatsoever that the Bible is made up and I can trace that assertion to any factual possibilities yet along to any known fact(s); again, you're explaining conclusions that you've drawn from information that just doesn't exist; these are your assertion and wishes, I get, except they do not jive with any reality and set of facts that I know of and can trace. In the Bible's favor (an addition to it clarifying that the Universe had a beginning), Genesis has a passage which says that the human lifespan was set at 120 years; millennia later, scientists actually determined that the maximum human lifespan is indeed around 120 years; such could not have been made up, especially by someone who first quotes a person living until 987 and later a person living until 137. that certainly tips the scales away from the Bible being made up, and that's one of many examples.

“The video also assumed that just because something has complex pattern and follows patterns, that it must've been made by an intelligent designer. Again that is just an assumption and an opinion the universe could easily be coincidentally and naturally complex, and that's just it's state. The nature of something, just because our minds can't comprehend its vastness due to our limitations, doesn't mean that a much more intelligent designer with infinite power designed it. People always look in awe as they realize that they're alive and in this vast incinerating and destructive cosmos, but then think about it like this: maybe you are just a special case in the universe, maybe that is just what makes you and this solar system very special, and that's all there is to it.”

Again, I understand your assertion, except I need you to propose a model for how the Universe could be naturally complex, coming from a singularity, as the Bib Bang says; it went from simple to more complex, but randomness cannot form the organizations specified, unless, of course, you can propose such a model.

“Let's not forget the possibility of life existing out there as well too, we most likely in fact are not the only life forms existing out there. Think about it, if there was another life form out there too, and they got to experience life and all it's complexities, wouldn't they think that they're the only special ones too, favored by their creator. We let our emotions cloud our actual knowledge of reality, and forget that we have no actual definitive proof of a creator god of origin, and really any proof of the metaphysical/supernatural.”

Actually, what scientists doesn't have is the things that you've drawn your conclusions from, as specified above. Additionally, other life in the Universe would not rule out a Supernatural beginning of the Universe, but, under certain circumstances, it would shake the specifics of the Genesis Creation account (e.g. the life component on Earth having an extraterrestrial instead of divine origins, but it wouldn't rule out a created Universe or Earth).

First of all scientists' theory of the origin and formation of the Earth is not the Big Bang Theory, you're way off. The Big Bang Theory is an explanation for the existence of the universe, the theory for the formation of Earth is determined by using collected evidence, not guesses and checks! Using radiometric dating, meteorology, and by observing the sound waves through the different layers of the Earth, along with many other factors taken into consideration, the Earth has been predicted to be more than 4 billion years old. We already have evidence of evolution; just look at your flu-shots, bacteria and viruses have mutated and evolved several times due to their lower complexity through out the years (sometimes singular years), we already have DNA and fossil evidence that supports biological evolution, and that is exactly why the theory of evolution is a fact just as much as it is a theory, it's almost undeniable when looking at life even today. You seem to think that this evidence is just non-nonsensical, but it is real and you can find out for yourself by looking at published science articles that have compared DNA of different organisms, to understand evolutionary traits.

It is speculation, but it's reality that only the committee decides who gets the prize, and they give it to whoever they're most appreciative of, and usually there are multiple people working on a single research project, so it should make you wonder why they chose one researcher out of all of those researchers, some of whom actually did the most/more work at certain times. Also for all we know the bible is written by early priests and scholars, there is no definitive evidence proving that the bible was actually composed from the story of all of its holy figures, or that they ever happened. We have evidence that proves the flood couldn't have happened and we have no evidence showing that almost an entire generation of Hebrew people were enslaved by the Egyptians.

“The video also assumed that just because something has complex pattern and follows patterns, that it must've been made by an intelligent designer. Again that is just an assumption and an opinion the universe could easily be coincidentally and naturally complex, and that's just it's state. The nature of something, just because our minds can't comprehend its vastness due to our limitations, doesn't mean that a much more intelligent designer with infinite power designed it. People always look in awe as they realize that they're alive and in this vast incinerating and destructive cosmos, but then think about it like this: maybe you are just a special case in the universe, maybe that is just what makes you and this solar system very special, and that's all there is to it.”

Again, I understand your assertion, except I need you to propose a model for how the Universe could be naturally complex, coming from a singularity, as the Bib Bang says; it went from simple to more complex, but randomness cannot form the organizations specified, unless, of course, you can propose such a model.

Before the Big Bang there was nothing to compare to, and during the beginning of the big bang after the singularity in space time, we don't know if what was spewed by this singularity was really that simple so much as of that there was a great deal of heat and energy. As the universe expanded this heat energy remained. but dispersed more allowing energy to spread out and this actually decreased entropy in certain closed systems (such as planets) and eventually allowed for more complex molecules to form and eventually after billions of years, allowed biological life to form, at least for the planets that had the materials for composing life. Even today we see basic star systems and simple gravitational pulls of large star systems that can easily serve as reminders of how powerful the Big Bang was. We thinks it's complex to see solar systems and stars that produce nuclear fusion at it's cores, but they're actually just basic natural phenomena that can be reasonably explained, but hard to observe because they're so far away. The Big Bang Theory is one of the more valid explanations for the formation of the known universe, but the bible for all we know has contradicted reality, and is not true.

Let's not forget the possibility of life existing out there as well too, we most likely in fact are not the only life forms existing out there. Think about it, if there was another life form out there too, and they got to experience life and all it's complexities, wouldn't they think that they're the only special ones too, favored by their creator. We let our emotions cloud our actual knowledge of reality, and forget that we have no actual definitive proof of a creator god of origin, and really any proof of the metaphysical/supernatural.”

Actually, what scientists doesn't have is the things that you've drawn your conclusions from, as specified above. Additionally, other life in the Universe would not rule out a Supernatural beginning of the Universe, but, under certain circumstances, it would shake the specifics of the Genesis Creation account (e.g. the life component on Earth having an extraterrestrial instead of divine origins, but it wouldn't rule out a created Universe or Earth).

I never said that or concluded that "supernatural" beings can not exist because of life outside there. It is outright clear that people associate they're existence in the universe as a gift and blessing brought on by some supernatural being. I simply stated that we have no evidence for supernatural beings, and that's why we shouldn't even consider giving such superstitions, that exists in the minds of people, credit because simply what a supernatural being is, is just a non-factor. Unless it can be proven otherwise, which will then again never be possible, because they're supernatural, thus not observable, testable, reproducible, and has nothing to help know of it's existence. If you think otherwise, then let me ask you how you would prove that a god (a definitively supernatural being) exists. Why would the god that you obviously believe in be so regional when he finished sending his word to his people? Why would he fill his holy book and message to us with stories of immoral actions by his followers, and why does he praise or reward genocide, rape and incest in those stories? Why does he put in stories that defy reality? Why would he ever allow us to be deceived by these flaws in reality if the Bible apparently holds true and we are to believe in him and put faith in him no matter what ever comes, and he's supposedly compassionate and all-loving?

The Big Bang would be the indirect model for the formation of stars, and than stars to planets, so I'm not way off. I think you're laying out your conclusions reach from a misunderstanding of the circumstances for the origins of the Earth; there is no evidence that has been collected that would explain the origins of the Earth. Radiometric dating will not explain the origin of the Earth; meteorology does not explain the origin of the Earth, to the extent to scientists have speculated, so far, and this by their own admission; and observing sound waves through different rock layers of the Earth will not explain the origin of the Earth; what you're trying to get at is the various models and speculations that scientists are using to try supporting the singular model that says that the Universe is around 14 billion years old; however, there are many models that show that the Earth could not possibly be so old (e.g. and they are based on the established principles of chemistry), and there's a theory for explaining distant star light to dissipate a connection of the Earth to this model for the formation of the universe.

“We already have evidence of evolution; just look at your flu-shots, bacteria and viruses have mutated and evolved several times due to their lower complexity through out the years (sometimes singular years), we already have DNA and fossil evidence that supports biological evolution, and that is exactly why the theory of evolution is a fact just as much as it is a theory, it's almost undeniable when looking at life even today. You seem to think that this evidence is just non-nonsensical, but it is real and you can find out for yourself by looking at published science articles that have compared DNA of different organisms, to understand evolutionary traits.”

The examples that you use for evolution are, in fact, examples of natural selection; this is not evolution, as in one organism changing into another, even at this microscopic level and for the reasons that you describe (e.g. lower complexity, couple with my observation, rapid reproduction) is quite remarkable and a blow to evolution; of course, you can cite a source, but a flu shot is natural selection in action, not evolution in action. And, you're overestimating what fossils show; they do not support the transitional life form model of evolution very well, as explained in that video in my last post. And, no, I don't thing the material being used as evidence is nonsensical, I just believe that what is shown can have a different interpretation that is just as valid as the interpretations being reached and popularized outside of Christian circles.

You are all confusing God with Religion.

Religion is nothing but the interpretation of humans of that, which is God.

Heaven. Hell. Judeo-Christian’s, Islamists, Hinduisms… Those are all theories written by men, explaining, or trying to explain, something greater than them.

It is like that old tale, where a wise man sat down to talk to an ant.

And the wise man asked, “Is there a God?” To which the ant answered “O yes, of course. He created us all.” “Well…” said the wise man, “Could you describe to me what God is?”

“He has ten legs instead of six. Four mandibles, instead of two, and four long, very long, antennas.” Replied the ant solemnly.

Which comes to mean, we tend to picture God through our own understandings. We appreciate good, and punish evil. So God should too. We have a consciousness, an intelligence through which we judge the world. So God should too.

We implement and increase in God our traits. It is said “God created man in its own resemblance.” However it is the other way around, we described God in our own resemblance.”

Think about that when you talk of religion.

Like my father used to say:

God does not exist, God is existence.

@dshipp17:

The Big Bang would be the indirect model for the formation of stars, and than stars to planets, so I'm not way off. I think you're laying out your conclusions reach from a misunderstanding of the circumstances for the origins of the Earth; there is no evidence that has been collected that would explain the origins of the Earth. Radiometric dating will not explain the origin of the Earth; meteorology does not explain the origin of the Earth, to the extent to scientists have speculated, so far, and this by their own admission; and observing sound waves through different rock layers of the Earth will not explain the origin of the Earth; what you're trying to get at is the various models and speculations that scientists are using to try supporting the singular model that says that the Universe is around 14 billion years old; however, there are many models that show that the Earth could not possibly be so old (e.g. and they are based on the established principles of chemistry), and there's a theory for explaining distant star light to dissipate a connection of the Earth to this model for the formation of the universe.

The Big Bang theory and the formation of Earth does not even come close to covering the same thing. The Big Bang theory just explains a natural phenomena that caused the formation of the universe, it describes specifically the singularity and the Big Bang. The theory on the Earth's formation talks about the possible circumstances that have led to the formation of the Earth, it does not tie the Earth's formation all the way back to the Big Bang, but instead circumstances that may have resulted from the Big Bang that would allow and explain the reason the Earth is the way it is today. There is evidence collected, through radiometric dating and measurement of sound waves that are indeed real! If you think people make these up, I encourage you to learn more about chemistry and sonar-physics, and if you wish the equipment being used to measure all these things, then you just may understand why it is evidence. A theory is formed once evidence has been collected, and the theory explains the obvious relationships found between individually collected data, and that in itself is what makes theories very important. I would also like for you to explain exactly why these models that prove the earth is flat work with the laws of chemistry and physics, if you can that is.

“We already have evidence of evolution; just look at your flu-shots, bacteria and viruses have mutated and evolved several times due to their lower complexity through out the years (sometimes singular years), we already have DNA and fossil evidence that supports biological evolution, and that is exactly why the theory of evolution is a fact just as much as it is a theory, it's almost undeniable when looking at life even today. You seem to think that this evidence is just non-nonsensical, but it is real and you can find out for yourself by looking at published science articles that have compared DNA of different organisms, to understand evolutionary traits.”

The examples that you use for evolution are, in fact, examples of natural selection; this is not evolution, as in one organism changing into another, even at this microscopic level and for the reasons that you describe (e.g. lower complexity, couple with my observation, rapid reproduction) is quite remarkable and a blow to evolution; of course, you can cite a source, but a flu shot is natural selection in action, not evolution in action. And, you're overestimating what fossils show; they do not support the transitional life form model of evolution very well, as explained in that video in my last post. And, no, I don't thing the material being used as evidence is nonsensical, I just believe that what is shown can have a different interpretation that is just as valid as the interpretations being reached and popularized outside of Christian circles.

Natural Selection is so closely related to evolution that I don't you haven't the slightest clue. Evolution occurs by the process of natural selection, when a certain set of the same species of organism mutates and has traits that supports its environment, and members of the same species have traits that don't benefit them, then the older generation is more likely to die out, and the newer generation of the same species who have the beneficial trait(s) will survive. Through this process species evolve, and through this process microorganisms evolve every year as well. And I am not overestimating fossils, you can look it up or engage in research yourself, as well as visit museums and you'll understand the significance of fossils and research done on DNA coding. Here's a very basic video explaining just exactly how the building blocks of life are significant in our understand of evolution:

“The Big Bang theory and the formation of Earth does not even come close to covering the same thing. The Big Bang theory just explains a natural phenomena that caused the formation of the universe, it describes specifically the singularity and the Big Bang. The theory on the Earth's formation talks about the possible circumstances that have led to the formation of the Earth, it does not tie the Earth's formation all the way back to the Big Bang, but instead circumstances that may have resulted from the Big Bang that would allow and explain the reason the Earth is the way it is today.”

So, if I take your hypothesis of this, than the Big Bang isn't connected to galaxy and star formation either, is it? While, as you're arguing, the Big Bang wouldn't explain the process of forming galaxy, itself, it is connected to the forming a galaxy. And, again, as I said, the current model is that star and planet formation is supposed to result from the death of a prior star, out of the resulting cloud disk. I know generally what the Big Bang is attempting to cover and I think my comment was quite clear on that; while the formation of stars and planets do not trace way back to the Big Bang itself, they still should be traced back to a cloud disks of deceased stars that formed those stars and planets; stars are linked to galaxies and galaxies are linked to the Big Bang; while technically our galaxy may not have been around during the time of the Big Bang, as the model goes, galaxies were formed as the result of the Big Bang.

“There is evidence collected, through radiometric dating and measurement of sound waves that are indeed real! If you think people make these up, I encourage you to learn more about chemistry and sonar-physics, and if you wish the equipment being used to measure all these things, then you just may understand why it is evidence.”

At what point did I say or imply that this wasn't real? Did you even look at the comment that you're quoting? As I said previously, these things that you're citing have nothing to do with the actual origin and formation of the Earth, they have more to do with trying to age the Earth, if that's what you're driving at.

“A theory is formed once evidence has been collected, and the theory explains the obvious relationships found between individually collected data, and that in itself is what makes theories very important. I would also like for you to explain exactly why these models that prove the earth is flat work with the laws of chemistry and physics, if you can that is.”

What are you talking about here? You lost all touch with reality, it looks like; sounds like you're attributing things to me that I didn't put there, but instead, things that you hoped to be there, and you're rebutting those things as if you're actually rebutting something that I actually said. I know what a theory is supposed to be, except it is not connected with anything we're discussing because the key component of collected evidence is lacking.

“Natural Selection is so closely related to evolution that I don't you haven't the slightest clue.”

Sure, they're supposed to be closely related. And natural selection was brought up, obviously, to rebut processes which you were calling evolution, but, which, in fact, were examples of natural selection in action, as I'd previously said.

“Evolution occurs by the process of natural selection, when a certain set of the same species of organism mutates and has traits that supports its environment, and members of the same species have traits that don't benefit them, then the older generation is more likely to die out, and the newer generation of the same species who have the beneficial trait(s) will survive. Through this process species evolve, and through this process microorganisms evolve every year as well.”

Natural selection has been observed in reality and it is real; it generally involves the reduction of information (mutation), not the addition of information, as would be required by evolution; natural selection is a process that actually occurs and has been observed, yet evolution is a theory that hasn't come into fruition; as I said, we've never actually observed one organism actually transform into a completely different organism; when we get the latest flu shot, it is to protect against a new flu strain which has mutated a defense against the immune system, which is natural selection in action, but the the strain is still influenza; it has not actually evolved into a new organism; it's like comparing individuals who are lactose intolerant to those who are not; given the environmental circumstances, the organism will revert back to the original form, when a need from the environment is no longer required; and that's natural selection in action; evolution is supposed to be the next step, where the organism is supposed to become a completely different organism, in time, but it's never been observed, despite the thousands of rounds of reproduction (and life cycles) that have been seen in respect to microorganisms over the last 100 years of trying to actually find evolution in action; saying natural selection is an example of evolution is a hopeful projection, except a projection is not actual evidence.

“ And I am not overestimating fossils, you can look it up or engage in research yourself, as well as visit museums and you'll understand the significance of fossils and research done on DNA coding. Here's a very basic video explaining just exactly how the building blocks of life are significant in our understand of evolution:”

The fossil records do not actually show evidence of evolution; as I said, the number of transitional lifeforms needed to go beyond speculation and projection is simply not to be found. And, concerning your video, we should all know, as scientists, the classic failure which was the Miller Experience to show that life is not possible from non-life, at the atomic level, moving forward.

Deuteronomy 12:13-32:

Take heed to thyself that thou offer not thy burnt offerings in every place that thou seest:

14 But in the place which the Lord shall choose in one of thy tribes, there thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings, and there thou shalt do all that I command thee.

15 Notwithstanding thou mayest kill and eat flesh in all thy gates, whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, according to the blessing of the Lord thy God which he hath given thee: the unclean and the clean may eat thereof, as of the roebuck, and as of the hart.

16 Only ye shall not eat the blood; ye shall pour it upon the earth as water.

17 Thou mayest not eat within thy gates the tithe of thy corn, or of thy wine, or of thy oil, or the firstlings of thy herds or of thy flock, nor any of thy vows which thou vowest, nor thy freewill offerings, or heave offering of thine hand:

18 But thou must eat them before the Lord thy God in the place which the Lord thy God shall choose, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy manservant, and thy maidservant, and the Levite that is within thy gates: and thou shalt rejoice before the Lord thy God in all that thou puttest thine hands unto.

19 Take heed to thyself that thou forsake not the Levite as long as thou livest upon the earth.

20 When the Lord thy God shall enlarge thy border, as he hath promised thee, and thou shalt say, I will eat flesh, because thy soul longeth to eat flesh; thou mayest eat flesh, whatsoever thy soul lusteth after.

21 If the place which the Lord thy God hath chosen to put his name there be too far from thee, then thou shalt kill of thy herd and of thy flock, which the Lord hath given thee, as I have commanded thee, and thou shalt eat in thy gates whatsoever thy soul lusteth after.

22 Even as the roebuck and the hart is eaten, so thou shalt eat them: the unclean and the clean shall eat of them alike.

23 Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh.

24 Thou shalt not eat it; thou shalt pour it upon the earth as water.

25 Thou shalt not eat it; that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, when thou shalt do that which is right in the sight of the Lord.

26 Only thy holy things which thou hast, and thy vows, thou shalt take, and go unto the place which the Lord shall choose:

27 And thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the Lord thy God: and the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out upon the altar of the Lord thy God, and thou shalt eat the flesh.

28 Observe and hear all these words which I command thee, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee for ever, when thou doest that which is good and right in the sight of the Lord thy God.

29 When the Lord thy God shall cut off the nations from before thee, whither thou goest to possess them, and thou succeedest them, and dwellest in their land;

30 Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise.

31 Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God: for every abomination to the Lord, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.

32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

I don't think... I'm not allowed to.

Breeds ignorance and idiots.

Would be a better world without it.

Religion =/= theories; no evidence to support them. It's oka to define God as existence so long as you realize there would no reason to call it a sentient being, but instead an object that represents the absolute point of origin of anything that has ever been apart of reality.

does more harm than good

I'll be the first to admit that religion can be detrimental. I've heard stories from others and seen a few Christians who are self-righteous judgmental pricks, and I understand the dangers of Sharia Law and Islamic Terrorism. Yet at the same time I've also seen religion transform people's lives for the better. My life has been transformed for the better by my religious beliefs, many of the kindest, most loving, and most humble people I have met in my life are Christians whose Christianity has notably impacted who they are as people, and Ben Shapiro is a man who sticks steadfast to certain ethical principles in a way that I believe is influenced by his Jewish belief in an objective morality over moral relativism. In a similar manner, I've met atheists who are a bunch of elitist pricks that spend their time justifying a sense of superiority rather than using their supposedly superior knowledge to actually benefit humanity, and I know of atheists who are deeply immoral people under the justification of moral nihilism or moral relativism. At the same time, some of my best friends are atheists who have become great human beings through a completely secular approach to life.

Though I believe in Christianity I admit that I could potentially be wrong. If I turn atheist sometime later in my life, I wouldn't resent Christianity or deny that my experiences with Christianity at this point in my life have helped make me a better person than I would've been otherwise, and if I die a Christian and it turns out I was wrong about the existence of God or Heaven I wouldn't regret the way I've lived my life.

My personal belief is that individuals are different, and may find different benefits in different viewpoints, such as myself and others I've met similar to me who have benefited morally from a lifetime of believing that love, humility, forgiveness, and aiding your fellow man is objectively at the heart of existence and purpose, and atheists who have benefited from a purely logical approach to their lives. As long as a legal freedom of and from religion exists and that the law protects violations against other people's lives and liberties, what I believe or what somebody else believes or doesn't believe is none of your damn business, and that's why I view evangelical religious people and new atheists with a certain level of contempt.

I don't believe a purely atheist world would be better quite frankly, and I don't believe a purely Christian world would be better either. There are people in both groups with progressive and regressive ideas tied to their beliefs or lack of beliefs. In a purely religious world, the regressive evangelical religious people would force a bunch of nonsensical moral authoritarian BS down people's throats and hold back scientific progress, which I'm sure everyone on this thread who believes religion is some cancer that needs to be eradicated from the face of the earth. There are however other dangers such as moral nihilism and post-modernist thought, the former of which is dangerous for obvious reasons and the latter of which is the motivating force behind numerous regressive ideas and attitudes in culture and politics in the modern world, and while an atheist world would lack the anti-science regressive evangelicals, it would also have a lot more of a moral nihilist presence and more of a postmodern influence, both of which are cancerous.

Thus I think in a world where freedom of and from religion is protected and people are allowed to pursue self-improvement in a religious or secular way would be and is the best world honestly. The cancerous and regressive parts of both religious and atheist communities are diametrically opposed to each other and thus the ideologically regressive part of society in this instance would be more divided, less unified, and thus less influential than they would be in a purely religious or atheistic world. By contrast the morally upstanding and reasonable parts of both the atheist and religious communities would find a lot more common ground, and would thus be significantly more unified in the pursuit of progress in comparison to the diametrically opposed religious anti-science evangelicals and the regressive atheistic post-modernists.

I think this point should be considered by anyone before they join in on the new-atheist anti-religion circle jerk or the religious supremacist fringe.

Should tag me next time, if you really want to say something to me.

So, if I take your hypothesis of this, than the Big Bang isn't connected to galaxy and star formation either, is it? While, as you're arguing, the Big Bang wouldn't explain the process of forming galaxy, itself, it is connected to the forming a galaxy. And, again, as I said, the current model is that star and planet formation is supposed to result from the death of a prior star, out of the resulting cloud disk. I know generally what the Big Bang is attempting to cover and I think my comment was quite clear on that; while the formation of stars and planets do not trace way back to the Big Bang itself, they still should be traced back to a cloud disks of deceased stars that formed those stars and planets; stars are linked to galaxies and galaxies are linked to the Big Bang; while technically our galaxy may not have been around during the time of the Big Bang, as the model goes, galaxies were formed as the result of the Big Bang.

It's pointless to generalize it like that because we don't know the true origins of stars we just estimate their age based on the type of star, whether it be a neutron, dwarf, main sequence or supergiant; we only know things to be true like luminosity, temperature, surface area and the estimation of it's age. This is a completely different study than the Big Bang because again as I have said the Big Bang refers to the singularity in space and time that caused the universe to be born, while study of star systems has nothing to do with that singularity (of course the Big Bang started the universe, but we don't know exactly if a star system was formed originally from a nebula(e) or a dead star(s) we just know it had to at one point). In theory, the formations of stars should trace back to the Big Bang, especially considering that we know the universe is expanding through the study of the Doppler Effect of light (Redshifts and Blueshifts) emitted by celestial bodies. Also what you said is not relatable to the point I was making about the difference between the formation of the Earth, and the Big Bang theory, which seems to make me think you're not understanding what I mean.

At what point did I say or imply that this wasn't real? Did you even look at the comment that you're quoting? As I said previously, these things that you're citing have nothing to do with the actual origin and formation of the Earth, they have more to do with trying to age the Earth, if that's what you're driving at.

So you're going to ignore physical evidence in place of superstitions and hypotheses brought on by creationists. The video you posted where the guy said that researchers are making assumptions, are not assumptions they're known to be true through evidence, the same evidence that lies back to radiometric dating and understand of rock formations, and geology!

What are you talking about here? You lost all touch with reality, it looks like; sounds like you're attributing things to me that I didn't put there, but instead, things that you hoped to be there, and you're rebutting those things as if you're actually rebutting something that I actually said. I know what a theory is supposed to be, except it is not connected with anything we're discussing because the key component of collected evidence is lacking.

Scientists would disagree with you, and tell you the evidence is not lacking mainly because there is just too much evidence that supports the theory of evolution, and it's only increasing every year where newer and newer fossils are being found and studied. Also I don't think you understand that evidence again is evidence, it's not something that you decide to reduce credibility of just because you think that it doesn't match with things you thought to be true, especially when evidence ties to so many basic things directly such as age. The theory of evolution is always changing and being improved with new data, which is what I was trying to explain to you, it's not some random hypothesis that we drew up from looking at the age of made up fossils in rocks.

Sure, they're supposed to be closely related. And natural selection was brought up, obviously, to rebut processes which you were calling evolution, but, which, in fact, were examples of natural selection in action, as I'd previously said.

You're missing the point then, with Natural Selection comes evolution, evolution is a long term effect of natural selection.

Natural selection has been observed in reality and it is real; it generally involves the reduction of information (mutation), not the addition of information, as would be required by evolution; natural selection is a process that actually occurs and has been observed, yet evolution is a theory that hasn't come into fruition; as I said, we've never actually observed one organism actually transform into a completely different organism; when we get the latest flu shot, it is to protect against a new flu strain which has mutated a defense against the immune system, which is natural selection in action, but the the strain is still influenza; it has not actually evolved into a new organism; it's like comparing individuals who are lactose intolerant to those who are not; given the environmental circumstances, the organism will revert back to the original form, when a need from the environment is no longer required; and that's natural selection in action; evolution is supposed to be the next step, where the organism is supposed to become a completely different organism, in time, but it's never been observed, despite the thousands of rounds of reproduction (and life cycles) that have been seen in respect to microorganisms over the last 100 years of trying to actually find evolution in action; saying natural selection is an example of evolution is a hopeful projection, except a projection is not actual evidence.

Again the virus did evolve because their predecessors separate off and the new virus has a better trait of infectious capabilities, it's different then the drastic changes of animals, but for microorganisms this is essentially evolution for them it occurs over a process of a few to decades of years. And again look at the evidence(!) found in study of genetic structures of different fossils as well radiometric dating to further provide evidence of these fossils age factor and how they fit into the evolutionary tree.

The fossil records do not actually show evidence of evolution; as I said, the number of transitional lifeforms needed to go beyond speculation and projection is simply not to be found. And, concerning your video, we should all know, as scientists, the classic failure which was the Miller Experience to show that life is not possible from non-life, at the atomic level, moving forward.

They do actually, and if you cared to understand how the data is collected then you may just come to understand why it is in fact evidence that we use to support the Theory of Evolution. Also we all don't know of the Miller Experience, and I don't see how that relates to evolution when evolution does not cover life that far back, what you're referring to is the origin of biological life on Earth itself.

Making God sentient is the humanization of what the ant did on that old tale when it gave God mandibles and antennas.

That is the thing. We deny God by implying He is not a sentient being, or we confirm God by thinking of Him through human standards.

I’ll make an analogy. We as 3 dimensional beings are unable to think or describe a four dimensional object. We often try to picture how a cube would be in a 4 dimensional plane, but in the end we are unable to imagine what a fourth dimension would imply, for our mind can only work in 3 dimensions.

We are unable to understand higher dimensions. Just like we are unable to understand a higher “being”. It is even hard to try and label God through a word or name, for if we use “God” we are instantly dragged into the typical depiction of most Major Religions. If we use Energy, or Existence, we go into a New Age line of thought… But in the end, what we should try to remember is that we are ants. No, not even ants. We are speckles of dust in the cosmos.

If you put both in perspective, making both the same size, planet Earth is smoother than a billiard ball.

And there we are. Invisible specks on a billiard ball, trying to decipher the infinite.

It’s funny if you stop to think about it. How important we think we are. How arrogant of us.

Look at Earth compared to the Sun:

Look at the Sun, compared to Antares:

Look at Antares compared to VY Canis Majoris:

Now think of how many stars like Canis Majoris are in a galaxy, how many galaxies in the known universe, how many universes in the Infinite.

And now tell me our sentient mind is really all that great to imagine and explain what God is or isn't.

This is US compared to the size of the known universe:

Take a look at this VIDEO and perhaps you will understand who we are, seen from a perspective, to decide or judge what God is.

@buckwheat:

The bigger it is, the more important it is

Absolutely agree.

However we must also have the humility to accept our place in the universe. Specially if we want to talk about the infinite, God, eternity... Those concepts are difficult to grasp for a human mind.

We should use prudence when talking about God. We should remember that religions are very limited on their descriptions and interpretations, most of them writen thousands of years ago. So to cloister God whitin a specific religion, to pretend to hold the truth about God... Well that is a very arrogant behavior.

@buckwheat:

Wouldn't want to be arrogant if I could help it.

Hindus describe god as being both the biggest and the smallest thing there is.

They describe God as being "not that" ie what ever you describe God to be, it's not that.

I reckon you would like the Hindu stuff.

Well, not saying you are. Just talking in a generic sense.

I do think Hindu religion has some good ideas to it. The "not that" description of God, in my opinion, is not all that great however.

Is a method of control by way of ignorance. Works for some...

Deuteronomy 14:28-29; 15:1-11;19-23: At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates:

29 And the Levite, (because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee,) and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest.

At the end of every seven years thou shalt make a release.

2 And this is the manner of the release: Every creditor that lendeth ought unto his neighbour shall release it; he shall not exact it of his neighbour, or of his brother; because it is called the Lord's release.

3 Of a foreigner thou mayest exact it again: but that which is thine with thy brother thine hand shall release;

4 Save when there shall be no poor among you; for the Lord shall greatly bless thee in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it:

5 Only if thou carefully hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe to do all these commandments which I command thee this day.

6 For the Lord thy God blesseth thee, as he promised thee: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, but thou shalt not borrow; and thou shalt reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over thee.

7 If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother:

8 But thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him, and shalt surely lend him sufficient for his need, in that which he wanteth.

9 Beware that there be not a thought in thy wicked heart, saying, The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand; and thine eye be evil against thy poor brother, and thou givest him nought; and he cry unto the Lord against thee, and it be sin unto thee.

10 Thou shalt surely give him, and thine heart shall not be grieved when thou givest unto him: because that for this thing the Lord thy God shall bless thee in all thy works, and in all that thou puttest thine hand unto.

11 For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.

All the firstling males that come of thy herd and of thy flock thou shalt sanctify unto the Lord thy God: thou shalt do no work with the firstling of thy bullock, nor shear the firstling of thy sheep.

20 Thou shalt eat it before the Lord thy God year by year in the place which the Lord shall choose, thou and thy household.

21 And if there be any blemish therein, as if it be lame, or blind, or have any ill blemish, thou shalt not sacrifice it unto the Lord thy God.

22 Thou shalt eat it within thy gates: the unclean and the clean person shall eat it alike, as the roebuck, and as the hart.

23 Only thou shalt not eat the blood thereof; thou shalt pour it upon the ground as water.

“It's pointless to generalize it like that because we don't know the true origins of stars we just estimate their age based on the type of star, whether it be a neutron, dwarf, main sequence or supergiant; we only know things to be true like luminosity, temperature, surface area and the estimation of it's age.”

I agree that scientists don't know the true origin of stars, if that origin is supposed to be independent of the Biblical account of creation; neither do they know the true origins of galaxies or the universe, if that origin is supposed to be different from the Biblical account of creation; yet, the current model of of star formation and planets is that they are the offspring of a parent star that went nova; this is the model for our class of star system; a bigger star would have created a neutron star, at which case, the Earth could not sustain life, due to the proximity to that neutron star; or, something like a pulsar would form, meaning that the Earth would be too close in proximity to support life, at least the type of life that currently exists on Earth.

“This is a completely different study than the Big Bang because again as I have said the Big Bang refers to the singularity in space and time that caused the universe to be born, while study of star systems has nothing to do with that singularity (of course the Big Bang started the universe, but we don't know exactly if a star system was formed originally from a nebula(e) or a dead star(s) we just know it had to at one point).”

Again, for the third time, I did not say that the supposed Big Bang event is directly how stars and planets and planets get created, as every single star and planet formation is not immediately preceded by a Big Bang event. The topic at hand here, was the origin for the creation of the Earth, itself, as a planet.

“In theory, the formations of stars should trace back to the Big Bang, especially considering that we know the universe is expanding through the study of the Doppler Effect of light (Redshifts and Blueshifts) emitted by celestial bodies.”

This is exactly what I'd described on the two prior occasions, when you made the above declaration and rebutted that, and attributed that to me, as if it was something that I had said, even after I corrected you not to rebut a statement that I didn't directly say, as it is attributing something to me that I did not say.

“So you're going to ignore physical evidence in place of superstitions and hypotheses brought on by creationists. The video you posted where the guy said that researchers are making assumptions, are not assumptions they're known to be true through evidence, the same evidence that lies back to radiometric dating and understand of rock formations, and geology!”

Actually, this is something that you did not say on the prior occasion. You mentioned the flat earth model, which I had not said anything about; additionally, I'm pretty sure that the individual in the video did not rebut anything in favor of the Bible based on a flat earth model, whatever that is. You're speaking out of complete ignorance of what creationists have to say, if you think they're arguing from a standpoint of superstition; creationists are actually using what the majority of the dating methods show to support them; in other wards, they're using another set of dating methods, which, means, as I'd previously said in another context, is a matter of which collection of data you want to take and draw interpretations from about things like the age of the Earth; radiometric dating is the in the minority of dating methods that are available for use as a means of dating the age of the Earth; rock formation and geology is a broader issue that could support other dating methods, and it's some of those other dating methods that the video presenter was alluding to, as evidence in support of what the Bible teaches.

“Scientists would disagree with you, and tell you the evidence is not lacking mainly because there is just too much evidence that supports the theory of evolution, and it's only increasing every year where newer and newer fossils are being found and studied.”

Again, this statement is wishful thinking on your part and an indication that you didn't examine the relevant videos that I provided; there is not a lot of evidence, or any evidence, at all, that supports evolution; what we have is a lot of models and conjecture that is increasing every year (e.g. evolution has been redefined as something that was previously called or thought of as the process of natural selection; however, in my mind and in a number of other scientists minds, this is not evidence for evolution).

“You're missing the point then, with Natural Selection comes evolution, evolution is a long term effect of natural selection.”

I have the point exactly right; evolution is a projection from the process of natural selection that has yet to be observed, despite a long period of evaluation (e.g. the time should have been sufficient to have observed evidence of evolution from natural selection in microorganisms, yet evidence has never materialized; even though we need a flu shot every year, because an influenza virus has developed a resistance to the immune system through the process of natural selection, that is not evolution, because the virus is still an influenza virus; evolution would require that the organism developed a resistance, because it had formed into a new type of organism such as a different type of virus, altogether, independent of the influenza class of viruses).

“Again the virus did evolve because their predecessors separate off and the new virus has a better trait of infectious capabilities, it's different then the drastic changes of animals, but for microorganisms this is essentially evolution for them it occurs over a process of a few to decades of years. ”

Again, this process is what is known as natural selection, not evolution, because the virus was still the influenza class of virus, not a separate, and unique class of a new type of virus, which is required to demonstrate evolution. This virus will revert back to it's predecessor form, given the right changes to the environment that it has been subjected to.

Deuteronomy 13:1-6:

If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,

2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;

3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

4 Ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.

5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the Lord thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.

6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers.

Longest living human ever? Maybe, but he's dead at 146

Deuteronomy 18:1-3; 18:22:

The priests the Levites, and all the tribe of Levi, shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel: they shall eat the offerings of the Lord made by fire, and his inheritance.

2 Therefore shall they have no inheritance among their brethren: the Lord is their inheritance, as he hath said unto them.

3 And this shall be the priest's due from the people, from them that offer a sacrifice, whether it be ox or sheep; and they shall give unto the priest the shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the maw. When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

@dshipp17:

Enjoyed the archangel Michael one.

It is interesting that Michael Doesn't show up in the New Testament.

He shows up in the Book of Revelation, for one; did you actually mean the Old Testament? There he shows up in the Book of Daniel. Oh, actually, I got you now; Jesus is not Michael.

@dshipp17:

Did you mean to post the first archangel Michael one or was that a mistake?

Deuteronomy 19:4-7:

And this is the case of the slayer, which shall flee thither, that he may live: Whoso killeth his neighbour ignorantly, whom he hated not in time past;

5 As when a man goeth into the wood with his neighbour to hew wood, and his hand fetcheth a stroke with the axe to cut down the tree, and the head slippeth from the helve, and lighteth upon his neighbour, that he die; he shall flee unto one of those cities, and live:

6 Lest the avenger of the blood pursue the slayer, while his heart is hot, and overtake him, because the way is long, and slay him; whereas he was not worthy of death, inasmuch as he hated him not in time past.

7 Wherefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt separate three cities for thee.

"Did you mean to post the first archangel Michael one or was that a mistake?"

It was a combination, actually; I both meant to post the first Archangel Michael video and it was a mistake, because the claim that Michael is one and the same with Jesus is clearly incorrect, as my second Archangel Michael video teaches.

@dshipp17:

The second Michael video wasn't very convincing at all.

Do you have any teachings that show that Michael was not the preincarnate Jesus?

All these videos being posted here are ridiculous. There's a total lack of critical thinking in this thread.

@willpayton:

I was hoping to generate some critical thinking regarding what the bible says about Michael and Jesus.

Did you march for "science" with bill nye the "popular out of date science guy"?

I'm not even sure what's being argued here anymore. Once I see these long posts with people quoting and arguing over stuff in the Bible, I tune out real quick. "My interpretation of this old book is better than your interpretation of it" is not a very interesting argument except for those who have based their whole belief systems around that book and dont want to give it up.

All I'm seeing is more of the usual nonsense videos like "scientists photograph soul leaving body"... so in other words the usual pseudo-science religious videos that abound in this thread every so often.

I didnt participate in the science march, although I also didnt know about it before it happened.

How is Bill Nye out of date? I heard that he has some new TV show (I think), but other than that I havent heard much about him lately.

@willpayton:

Before I slag off about bill nye I must know if you have familiarised yourself with the third way of evolution papers, and if you understand the non Darwinian/ non Design perspective.

I've seen the website, but it doesnt appear to be very clear exactly what they are proposing. Also, their claims are vague and dont appear to be well supported. For example they make claims like "neo-Darwinism ignores processes like X, Y, and Z..." but I dont see any evidence for that. Maybe if I was a biologist that specialized in evolution then I'd know if that's true, but since I'm not it just looks like empty claims. They say that Darwinism ignores symbiogenesis, but I see around 4,000 results in Google Scholar with that term. Again, they say that Darwinism ignores horizontal DNA transfer, but I find more than 1,100 articles talking about that. How are these things being ignored?

Deuteronomy 20:17-18:

But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee:

18 That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the Lord your God.

"The second Michael video wasn't very convincing at all.

Do you have any teachings that show that Michael was not the preincarnate Jesus?"

The second video very expressively provided the teachings that Jesus could not be Michael. Taking one example, and perhaps the most pertinent example, Michael did not presume to give Satan a Commandment without God's permission, while Jesus, as God, gave Satan and his demons Commandments and instructions at various places in the New Testament (e.g. the famous quote, "Get behind me Satan" to one of the disciples, at one point); only God has the ability and authority to order angels around. And, throughout the New Testament, Jesus did things only designated for God and no angel has that authority.

Again, can you point to any specifics, instead of just saying the videos are ridiculous and no critical thinking was involved? If it were so easy, surely you would have presented examples from specific videos. Just a blanket statement isn't proof or evidence that what you're saying is true.

I have better things to do than debunk all the silly videos and claims that appear in this thread.

Food for tought

Deuteronomy 21:10-14:

When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,

11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;

12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;

13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.

14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

"I have better things to do than debunk all the silly videos and claims that appear in this thread."

First, how are you going to rebut videos in the biological field with a statement like this? These are life science videos. Second, you don't have to attempt rebutting all of the accumulated videos, unless you so desire. You could try your hand at just one video, unless, you're calling videos ridiculous that you haven't seen; in that case, how can you claim that no critical thinking was involved?

@buckwheat said:

Food for tought

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder; would you describe Eve is beautiful or ugly? Sarah, Rebecca (or, Leah, her sister), and Rachel were described as beautiful, but, how would you rate them? Also, how would you describe Bathsheba?

@dshipp17:

Yeah I read another part that says that Micheal took days to defeat some demon (prince of Persia maybe), that doesn't sound like Jesus either.

@willpayton:

Neo-Darwinism is not science as a whole so you will of course find many references to these things that don't harmonise with Darwinism.

There are reasons why these things don't fit the "modern synthesis" (Darwinism) and if you are interested, then it's not hard to find out why.

It's worth learning.

Well, that was a nameless angel that took all of that time; Michael was required to come and speed up the process. Also, in my last post, notice that when Michael asked God's permission to engage Satan, it took place in the New Testament; that's another reason that Michael could not have been the pre-incarnate version of Jesus. Also, I'd say in Revelation, but, some debate that the description might have been when Satan and his angels were kicked out of Heaven; what do you think?

@buckwheat: But, specifically for your question, Eve is one of only two people that God actually created; everyone else, after Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden are the result of releasing sin, death, disease, and other negative issues into the world; that was not God's intention; therefore, God didn't create ugly people in that direct sense, as the case of Adam and Eve; birth defects and such were the result of the consequences of their Fall.

@dshipp17:

Rev12 doesn't seem to me to be about the fall of Satan. Perhaps it's about satan and his angels no longer being allowed to come before god to give accounts.

I also have some other less "Christian" theories about it,