what do hardcore bible believers say about this???

I personally don't care what Anthony Flew thinks about anything, nor how much people like to misinterpret what he's been saying.Here is an article wherein Flew actually had to clarify his position.

Since Professor Anthony Flew renounced atheism in December 2004 the Christian community has used his conversion to support their case. They may have welcomed him as one of their own but he feels no sense of kinship, according to an interview on Radio 3 broadcast this week.

Flew, 81, told Joan Bakewell: "Too Bad, I'm not one of them." He continued: "What I was converted to was an Aristotelian God, a god who has no interest in human affairs at all."

He actually isn't a supporter of intelligent design, if you notice. IDists state that god became invovled in lots of things, whereas he is stating that its strictly limited to the origins of life.

He figures, essentially, that its just too difficult for life to have ever occured without supernatural influence. Of course, since Flew isn't a abiogenesis researcher, his opinion on the matter is entirely irrelevant.


[edit on 10-4-2005 by Nygdan]

ok, but where is the proof for evolution?

Originally posted by Joshm2u
ok, but where is the proof for evolution?

Thats what I'd like to know...

Seems to me that Evolutionists claim we came from Apes, If that is indeed true, Why do we still have Apes?

Isn't it likely that if we evolved from them that they would no longer be around?

And Where is this missing link?
If we Did evolve from Apes, there should be a whole lot of evidence to support it in the shape of transitional skelitons.

Darwin himself recanted his theory of evolution years later when he recognised that it was rubbish.

Dog + Dog = Dog

Not one change of species into another is on record...we cannot prove that a single species has been changed."

Charles Darwin, My Life & Letters

Has any evolutionist Ever read all of Darwins works?

Darwins theory came about when he was in the South pacific as a young man, Seeing species that he never saw before. So he found similarities between what he was looking at and what he knew. He erroniously concluded that simmilar animals were related and tried to figure it out. It was only a hypothisis that he published. Unfortunately it was taken as proof.

Here "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."

The Evolution of Man
Scientifically Disproved

Evolution: Creation, Darwin or Natural?

Originally posted by Joshm2u
ok, but where is the proof for evolution?

You reject evolution, yet aren't familiar with the evidence for it?

dancer
Isn't it likely that if we evolved from them that they would no longer be around?

No, it is not. It would be unlikely that they wouldn't still be around just because some of them evolved into man.

If we Did evolve from Apes, there should be a whole lot of evidence to support it in the shape of transitional skelitons.

Correct. Furthermore, there are.

Darwin himself recanted his theory of evolution years later when he recognised that it was rubbish.

This, in fact, is an absolute lie. Darwin never recanted his theory.

Not one change of species into another is on record

This also is completely wrong.

Has any evolutionist Ever read all of Darwins works?

I suggest you study his books and find arguements that refute his. No one's been able to do that in the over 200 years since his theories were first proposed.

The Evolution of Man
Scientifically Disproved

The unity of mankind is also conclusively shown by the fact that all races interbreed, the most certain test of every species.

Thats not anything like a refutation of darwinism, it doesn't even make sense, and rather its a propsition of darwinian evolution. This is from an article written in 1925, the guy apparently wasn't even up to the, in his times, current understandings of science.
On the quotes, they're what is refered to as 'misquotes'
They note

LONG before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him. Some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without being in some degree staggered; but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, fatal to theory.

How is that a refutation or recanting? Darwin realized, in full, the incredible implications of his theory, more so than practically any of his contemporaries. That hardly means that he recanted his theory. Indeed, he never recanted his theory.

Do you anti-Christian intellectuals think you are smart enough to take your anti-Christian crap to spirituality forum, rather than conspiracy? This is not conspiracy, but the usual, run of the mail hate-garbage.

You guys are brilliant, able to see through so much mythological stuff, yet can't quite grasp the whole concept of posting in the proper forums.

It certainly hasn't been only supposed 'anti-christians' posting in the thread. Anyway, you're correct, the thread should've been moved to this forum, infact, I should've been the one moving it, my apologies for the error.

Now that that is squared away, lets see if we can all continue the discussion.

i am glad this thread did not get deleted

anyway, i am happy to see great debating going on...

keep on posting!!!

i will add something later...

what do hardcore (or at least catholics) bible believers say about this:

WHERE did the sperm come from that made Mary have a child???

i mean, the sperm MUST have came from some place...

science proves this...

another possibility:

Mary wasn't a virgin!!!

yet another:

Mary was a-sexual...

another:

the angel gave Mary the sperm...

is there another???

so...

it IS possible, to be a catholic and have your own thought on where the sperm came from...

so, what do YOU think???

"The Immaculate Deception"

members.aol.com...

"Mary: Virgin and Ever Virgin"

www.catholicapologetics.org...

"THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF JESUS: Fact or fable?"

www.religioustolerance.org...

read up!!!

i will too...

heres one site........Virgin Mary...discussing Mary and Jesus, at the bottom of the page.

Thus, neither Christ's spirit nor his body must have resulted from the DNA of Mary's egg or from any man's sperm. Both would have contained inherited genetic defects and the sin nature. As Scripture tells us, Jesus was truly the Second Adam. The first Adam was a special creation of God (not related to any human being), and so was the second Adam (Romans 5:12-19). Jesus was just as fully human as the first Adam. And just like the first Adam, he had no sin nature, no inherited sin, no sinful flesh, which has always been passed from one generation to the next since Adam and Eve's sin. He was absolutely pure and without sin--from the day he was born, till the day he died. He had to be--he was the Lamb of God, without blemish or spot, sacrificed for sins (John 1:29).

and another about CREATION AND THE VIRGIN BIRTH

I can only figure that one could say that it was a miracle.

I suppose there are a few possibilities. Mary's eggs would have, effectly, half of the requisite information/genetic material. God could manufacture the rest fo the material from, say spontaneously apeearing amino acids and proteins. That other possiblity is that a fully formed baby was inserted into her, or a zygote or somesuch, and that it wasn't made up of anyone in particular's dna.

This infact brings up an odd consideration. Some sort of genetic information would have to be designed directly by god (or jesus, depending on what side of a schism you're on I suppose). So would that or would that not imply that there is 'ideal' genetic information or not? Would we be able to say anything about the characteristics of the creator if we had this genetic information?

On the other hand, perhaps the material was created spontaneously, and as if if it been the result of a typical mating, in terms of information and whatnot.

Thats interesting in itself tho, because everyone has mutations, genetic errors, and genetic problems and propensities torwards diseases. That would mean that jesus can't be considered to be genetically/physically perfect. Tho I suppose thats ony a problem for anyone that thinks he was/should be.

Originally posted by Nygdan
I can only figure that one could say that it was a miracle.

if it WAS a miracle, why doesn't EVERYONE in the world believe???

i mean, a virgin birth is a GREAT thing...

who needs rising from the dead when you have this???

people (non-believers) MUST believe that the virgin birth can be explaned...

My first BTS post! ooooh!

btw, how many people in the bible are named mary?

And if I hit someone with my car, they ain't coming back . So how could jesus come back?

What everyone needs is to form their OWN religion! One that doesn't have to pay taxes, or petrol prices (in Australia, the government can't make laws discriminating against religions. Jackpot! )

Originally posted by wang
I know what the hardcore bible believers will say...as they always have a answer.
God made the plan of those new animals to evolve, he created the right enviroment for those creatures to come into existence.

Dont even try to question christians.....its a waste of time.

well not all christians are like that. im a christian but im not hardcore. i hate jerry farewell and pat robertson. your lumping people like me into the group of hardcore christians and i dont appreciate(sp) it

Originally posted by they see ALL
what do hardcore (or at least catholics) bible believers say about this:

WHERE did the sperm come from that made Mary have a child???

i mean, the sperm MUST have came from some place...

science proves this...

another possibility:

Mary wasn't a virgin!!!

yet another:

Mary was a-sexual...

another:

the angel gave Mary the sperm...

is there another???

so, what do YOU think???

I think as a member of the



...it is my dutiful obligation to stamp these less than remarkable theories as:

[edit on 29-4-2005 by saint4God]

wow saint4God...

just wow...

You make good threads that a lot of people look at by saying GAY or BIBLE or GOD lol.

Originally posted by Wisdumb
You make good threads that a lot of people look at by saying GAY or BIBLE or GOD lol.

no...

post worthy things please...

o0o yeah...

thanks for "bumping" this thread...

Originally posted by saint4God


I think as a member of the



...it is my dutiful obligation to stamp these less than remarkable theories as:

I will second that WoW and raise you a "Do you hear the sizzle?"

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by they see ALL
what do hardcore (or at least catholics) bible believers say about this:

WHERE did the sperm come from that made Mary have a child???

i mean, the sperm MUST have came from some place...

science proves this...

another possibility:

Mary wasn't a virgin!!!

yet another:

Mary was a-sexual...

another:

the angel gave Mary the sperm...

is there another???

so, what do YOU think???

I think as a member of the



...it is my dutiful obligation to stamp these less than remarkable theories as:

[edit on 29-4-2005 by saint4God]

I agree with the CIA.


Wisdom is missing from your post.
"Science proves it has to come from somewhere.."

Science can neither prove nor disprove Genesis. It has only theory to go on.

But the overall proof you seek is so close to your face that you cant see it.
Creation.
Isnt a clay pot proof that there is a potter who made it?
Formed metal is proof of a smith.

Since science cannot say otherwise without theories that require WAYYY more faith then I have.... I will place the little faith I have in God and His wisdom