Christianity On The Decline In America.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Speaking as a Pagan. I am not seeing an influx of the igeneration (genz) to us thanks. The numbers are pretty static in most ways. Certainly not an influx.

So nice try.

Oh and agreeing evolution has nothing to do with ones faith, unless one is a creationist whack job.

I have read almost 2 pages of this thread and the replies here
have me sad at heart.We are living in the end times and most
have no clue what they are about to experience.The Messiah
is returning soon and the door to salvation is closing.Once it
is closed it will never open again.You have to repent of your
sins while you still have the chance to.

a reply to: mamabeth

People have been saying this for 2000 years now. That really isn't a selling point for your religion anymore.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The reality is that time is running out,one door is closing and another
is opening.The one closing is the one that leads to life,the one opening,
leads to death.One of these days people will see things that will make
them mess in their pants out of fear.

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: mamabeth

Not gonna happen, but don't worry you can raise your kids to be like you, and if you're lucky they can warn the next generation of the same nonsense. Then they can raise their kids the same, and if this continues, eventually the world will end due to some meteor or something and some descendant can say I told you so.

a reply to: Puppylove

To be brutally honest I was not raised in a hardcore Christian atmosphere.
My "kid" is in her 40's and I wish that I was living a Christian life style while
she was growing up.

originally posted by: mamabeth
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The reality is that time is running out,one door is closing and another
is opening.The one closing is the one that leads to life,the one opening,
leads to death.One of these days people will see things that will make
them mess in their pants out of fear.

www.youtube.com...

Time is always running out. Nothing lasts forever and everything will end eventually. That doesn't mean the Bible's prophecies are real.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Evolution doesn’t make any claims about God.

Sure it does. Evolution has to have a creation of substance at some point does it not? How did the substance which evolution came from become that substance that evolution came from. If you believe the substance of reality came from magic then where did the magic come from?

It doesn't matter what you call it, something had to exist for the theory of that existence to become an evolution of that existence. Whether you call it a god or just man is your prerogative but there had to be a start of all existence in order for that existence to evolve. If you wish to believe that you were and will return as a cow chip in a barn yard is your decision but others will believe as they also choose and they should not be anymore criticized than you should be criticized.

The word science is nothing but a method of trying to present it as a god. In all reality true science is a complex assembly of laws that pertain to a certain period. Those laws were and will always change in time. They have to change if evolution is true. The earth depletes certain elements and replenishes certain elements in time. Time in itself is evolution and is not constant forever.

NASA will claim that over 4 billion years ago the earth rotated on its axis at a rate of 7 hours per one rotation. Not the 24 hours that we have now but 7 hours that was in the time frame of 4 billion years ago. The gravity and air that we breath
has greatly changed and the earth has been greatly changed in accordance with the gravity and air components. This affected the quality of waters both above and below the crust of this earth. This world is slowly evolving into a dust bowl of extinction and is believed to eventually become another dead planet among the cosmos. That is according to some religions as well as scientists. That is called evolution.

Now to be a fair thinker you should realize that a religion, at least, will cite a beginning of their reasoning and admit that they have nothing except a belief of a Creator of some sort whereas most university evolutionists have nothing of the sort. There are some evolutionists who do have a religion which is considered part of that religion and cannot be considered a true evolutionist. We then have spiritual evolutionists as well as terrestrial evolutionists and this also is a game in life's prerogatives. But regardless of all the hype of who is right and who is wrong, common sense will tell you that all you and I have is belief and regardless of any claims or name calling that will not prove our points.

My opinions of course

a reply to: Seede

Yes it is your opinion. Evolution quite simply is a statement about how life changes. NOT how it began. Thus for those who are not young earth creationists, its not at odds with anything in the bible or any other Abrhamic text.

a reply to: Noinden

TextYes it is your opinion. Evolution quite simply is a statement about how life changes. NOT how it began.

You missed the point completely. You must have a beginning of whatsoever you believe has evolved. If not then how do you know what you now have did evolve? That my friend is a fact and not an opinion and it is not [quite simply]. If it were quite simply then you would have the answers and you do not have the answers.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Time is always running out. Nothing lasts forever and everything will end eventually. That doesn't mean the Bible's prophecies are real.

Very much right about that.
Jesus Christ is the only reason the prophecies
are real.

a reply to: Seede

Nope I did not miss the point. There are hypotheses for how life began. We (scientists) don't know exactly how it began. We may never do. Thus we can not discount a deity, deities, or holy pasta, perchance a sneezing comic goat? The point is, you don't need to know how life began, to know how it changes. We know a lot about how life changes. I know this, because I've done some of the experiments, made some of the observations.

So its nice that you are trying to dictate how a scientific theory must be. You don't have the chops to actually make it so. If you want to change it... go work in the field. Next you will tell your surgeon how to perform an operation, or a mechanic what needs done to your vehicle.

So you certainly have none of the answers. You do however have an opinion. We all know about options

a reply to: Noinden

Nope I did not miss the point. There are hypotheses for how life began. We (scientists) don't know exactly how it began.

Absolutely there are propositions on “how life began” and there are also biblical theories on “how life began,” so what is your point? You really don’t need to be a guy in a smock with a petri dish to understand that you will never know theoretical evolution simply because you have no idea where to start or even observe or demonstrate. The same applies to a religion [whatever it may be] but most religions will not venture into a theoretical evolutionary rant such as secular opinionated lab techs do.

I dictate nothing and you know nothing of my chops [whatsoever that may be].

You wrote “We (scientists) [whatever that means] don't know exactly how it began. We may never do.”

You are right on with that admission and exactly as I have said in the first place. So what is your negativity? Can you demonstrate or observe evolution at its onset? Not in another 4.5 billion years can that be shown and you very well know that as fact. If you cannot demonstrate what it was then you cannot show its evolution, It could be a cyclic event and not evolution just the same as it could also be a series of new creations and not evolution.

You also wrote “Thus we cannot discount a deity, deities, or holy pasta, perchance a sneezing comic goat?”

One day you may want to accept that you are a limited species of life that will perish at a point in time and that you have no control in that matter whatsoever. If you believe that you will be a sneezing comic goat in an afterlife then I accept your opinion that you will be a sneezing goat. Yes that is your opinion and I would not want to dictate your right to be as you wish. I wish you well in your job as a lab tech in trying to demonstrate whatsoever your boss tells you to do and yes it is my opinion that evolution is vastly misunderstood as being a science while it is nothing of the sort.
My opinions of course

a reply to: Seede
I'm kinda with Noinden here. You're conflating Evolution with Abiogenesis. One is a theory that seeks to explain the incredible biodiversity on earth today, and the other seeks to explain the very existence of life itself. One doesn't concern itself with the other.

Your argument that "If you accept evolution, there must have been a beginning, so evolution is about the beginning of life!" is a bit...silly, if you don't mind me saying so. It's like saying "If you believe in gravity, then you believe that the matter that has the force of gravity must have come from somewhere, so gravity is about the existence of the universe!".

Evolution does not concern itself with the genesis of life or the existence of God, just the process through which its diversity and complexity came about. You can have (and there are) both theistic and atheistic evolutionists.

Now if you believe that all life that exists today (humans and dogs and cats and cows and shrubs and bacteria) suddenly popped up at some point, and have always stayed the same, THEN I guess you're against evolution, but also against common sense and observable evidence...

a reply to: Seede

Why are you insisting that the change in life (evolution) needs to account for how it began (biogenesis). That is illogical. Not every scientific theory need be equated with every hypothesis out there (do you understand the difference? OR do you think we still have scientific laws that can't be broken? If you do. You should not try any science.)

We have observed evolution in our life time. Its called antibiotic resistance. Yes it is due to mutations, thus it is evolution. If you are going to say "but we have never observed speciation" well sorry yes we have.

From a human perspective, we are still evolving. For example, between 10K and 5K years ago (it occurred in multiple groups, with different mutations for each group) groups of humans became lactose tollerant. This means that adults can digest satisfactorily lactose in dairy. The base state in nature is not lactose tolerance. Adult mammals do not generally consider milk a viable food source. Because it causes dietary distress in them. However humans who herded cattle (most notably the people who would come to be known as the Indo-Europeans, hint we are conversing in an Indo-European language) discovered that it was better, to not eat all your cattle. Rather use the milk for multiple things, and save the beef for special occasions. This occured in at least two other populations not connected to them.

You are missing the fact I am religious. You also missed a Douglas Adams refernce with the sneezing goat. I am a deeply religious Gaelic and Gaulish polytheist. I make offerings and pray daily. I do not see humanity as anything more than another creature. We just happen to be mostly sapient (some of the posters here make me wonder).

What I do in my lab is not what my boss tells me to do neighbor. I conduct research, for clients, in the pharmaceutical industry. In Process Development. The data lets me know what I should try, and I make the decision. Not my bosses. They would only make a decission based on business, and that is usually via the client, not them.

You need to learn a lot, before talking about evolution. Do some readin. No I don't mean Dawkins, he's a dick, and his popular science books are not for you (being religious). May I suggest Bryan Sykes DNA USA

a reply to: Noinden

You need to learn a lot, before talking about evolution. Do some readin.

Who told you that I have a religion? You actually know very little of my qualifications which I keep to my self. I do not blow my own horn or have the grandiose affliction such as you seem to have.

Your advise to me is ----- "May I suggest Bryan Sykes DNA USA " -

Do you mean the Sykes revelation of Yeti? Ahem-------

Your advise may be well intended but still lacking in common sense. Regardless of what Sykes thinks he knows, he still must have physicalities dated to present his information and therein lays his problem. That same problem was shown in his Yeti assumption where he was greatly embarrassed and wrong.

Your greatest problem is to assume that the laws of physics has remained constant since the inception of this universe without realizing that the laws of physics must also evolve along in time. It is very foolish to believe that only selected animated substances change and in-animated substances do not change. That is what my understanding of your post is.

a reply to: babloyi

Your argument that "If you accept evolution, there must have been a beginning, so evolution is about the beginning of life!" is a bit...silly, if you don't mind me saying so. It's like saying "If you believe in gravity, then you believe that the matter that has the force of gravity must have come from somewhere, so gravity is about the existence of the universe!".

The Darwinian evolution was centered in the life forms of Darwin's understandings. If a man evolved from a primate and you are asked to show that progression from a primate to a man then by all reasonable accounts you must show the entire progression of that man. Not just one phase of progression. Producing only one phase of the evolution would be inconclusive to say the least. You must have a start of the evolution process otherwise it is not evolution but can be observed as change.

Change is not necessarily evolution. A baby has a beginning of life such as all animated life has the same and as that life reaches death it will show change, not the Darwinian evolution.

You wrote - "Your argument that "If you accept evolution, there must have been a beginning"

Absolutely there must be a beginning. There must be a beginning of all animated and in animated substances. Gravity itself had to have a beginning as well as the entirety of this universe. All matter is finite in this terrestrial realm. Nothing is infinite in this universe but evolution is not confined to just animated life.

a reply to: Seede

You clearly are not educated in the sciences, based on your posts. And yes Bryan Sykes was nice, and analyzed the so called Yeti Data. But you are missing the point yet again ... the samples were bears. You can access the information, if you know R, you too could look at them. You do know how to use R to do Bioinformatics right?

You are clearly Abrhamic with your views. There is nothing wrong with owning ones achievements. If you knew anything of my spiritual path, you'd understand the point of oineach and clú. We live on through deeds and memory. The songs people sing. The tales they tell. Thus I've earned my qualifications, and I will not deny them.

Imeacht gan teacht ort

a reply to: Seede

originally posted by: Seede
The Darwinian evolution was centered in the life forms of Darwin's understandings. If a man evolved from a primate and you are asked to show that progression from a primate to a man then by all reasonable accounts you must show the entire progression of that man. Not just one phase of progression. Producing only one phase of the evolution would be inconclusive to say the least. You must have a start of the evolution process otherwise it is not evolution but can be observed as change.

Sure, there are phases that go all the way back to single-celled organisms. And if you ask how the first single-celled organisms come into existence, well, there are many theories, but they have nothing to do with Evolution.

Evolution does not answer or seek to answer the question of how life came into existence
Also, btw, humans are classified as primates.

originally posted by: Seede
You wrote - "Your argument that "If you accept evolution, there must have been a beginning"

Absolutely there must be a beginning. There must be a beginning of all animated and in animated substances. Gravity itself had to have a beginning as well as the entirety of this universe. All matter is finite in this terrestrial realm. Nothing is infinite in this universe but evolution is not confined to just animated life.

Except you didn't complete my quote. Of course evolution accepts that life exists (and thus began somehow), but the theory of evolution has nothing to do with how the first forms of life came into existence.

This is such a bizarre argument to be having, not the least of which because I don't see why you're making the point you are making.
If evolution made claims about (or against) God, the Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox, mainline Protestant and Methodist churches would be against it, yet they release statements that there is no intrinsic conflict between evolution and Christianity.
If evolution made claims about (or against) God, all the Jewish denominations would be against it (instead of just some Haredi movements), yet they have no issue with it.

This false dichotomy between science and religion is so absurd to me anyhow. Religion has never sought to answer the "how"s of science, just the "why"s of existence. As a theist, certainly, the eventual answer to every "How.." is "God did it", and that wouldn't be wrong, but that answer is not relevant to science, and if we had never moved beyond that, science wouldn't even exist at all.

babloyi

but the theory of evolution has nothing to do with how the first forms of life came into existence.

I believe you are mistaken. The Darwinian evolution relies entirely on the the very start of life such as exists today. There are several concepts of evolution which are taught in universities but the evolution we are discussing here is that of Darwin's theory.

Actually this is not an argument on my part and I really could care less on how others view a source. The entire issue is a matter of theoretical or theological perspectives of various beliefs. An example of this is the orthodox Hebrews view as is stated in their bible which clearly states that their God made man in their God's image and after His likeness and not in the likeness of non-hominoid simians or like minded species.

When a debater becomes so hateful and full of personal grandiose then it is best to let the discussion rest. --- Noinden has stated Quote "I am a deeply religious Gaelic and Gaulish polytheist. I make offerings and pray daily. I do not see humanity as anything more than another creature. We just happen to be mostly sapient (some of the posters here make me wonder)." Unquote --

That statement alone tells me that his belief is life by chance, just as he has stated, and is not worthy of further time or comment.