PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Some questions for creationist
       Any answers?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
threefigureminimum

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So, I've got a few questions for creationists/ID's that i'd like answered.
1. How come we have 5 fingers? Surely and intellegent being designing us, knowing that we would use maths would give us 6 fingers, the base 12 is much better than a base 10 for maths
2. Why do we have an appendix?
3. (Similar to 2) why do mitochondria and chloroplasts have their own DNA?
4. How do you explain the fossil record?
5. How do you explain carbon dating?
6. How do you explain plate tectonics?
7. How do you explain an expanding universe?
8. Where are all the dinosaurs?
9. In fact where are the rest of the creatures that the fossil record represents? (99.9% of species have become extinct since the apperance of life)
10. How the hell did Noah get two of every unclean animal and plant and seven of every clean animal on one boat?
11. How did noah stop them eating each other?
12. how did he carry enough food?
13. where did he keep all the fish?
14. where did he keep all the pants?
15. where did he keep all the microbes?
16. how did all the animals of the world get to one place?
17. how did he create the right conditons for all the animals?
I'm sure theres more if i think about it...
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 4:07 PM on November 1, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1. How come we have 5 fingers? Surely and intellegent being designing us, knowing that we would use maths would give us 6 fingers, the base 12 is much better than a base 10 for maths
   WHICH EXPLAINS THE DECIMAL SYSTEM... WAIT, NEVERMIND

2. Why do we have an appendix?
   THIS HAS BEEN COVERED.  READ AN ANATOMY BOOK.

3. (Similar to 2) why do mitochondria and chloroplasts have their own DNA?
   YOU'RE RIGHT.  DNA IS POINTLESS.

4. How do you explain the fossil record?
   UM, ANIMALS DIED.

5. How do you explain carbon dating?
   ARE WE REFERRING TO THE SAME CARBON DATING THAT HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE INACCURATE TIME AND TIME AGAIN?

6. How do you explain plate tectonics?
   THE SAME WAY OTHER SCIENTISTS DO.  NOT SURE WHAT THAT HAS TO DO WITH CREATION.

7. How do you explain an expanding universe?
   SERIOUSLY?

8. Where are all the dinosaurs?
   DEAD?

9. In fact where are the rest of the creatures that the fossil record represents? (99.9% of species have become extinct since the apperance of life)
   DEAD?

10. How the hell did Noah get two of every unclean animal and plant and seven of every clean animal on one boat?
    YEAH, IT'S NOT LIKE THE BIBLE HAS ANY MIRACLES IN IT, WAIT, NEVERMIND.

11. How did noah stop them eating each other?
    RINSE, REPEAT

12. how did he carry enough food?
    RINSE, REPEAT

13. where did he keep all the fish?
    NOW THIS ONE IS JUST PLAIN STUPID.  GEE, WHERE WOULD FISH GO DURING A FLOOD?   HMMM.  I'LL LET YOU ANSWER THAT ONE EINSTEIN.

14. where did he keep all the pants?
    GEE, HOW MANY PANTS DID HE NEED FOR 4 MEN?

15. where did he keep all the microbes?
   YEAH, THOSE DIE IN WATER TOO, WAIT, NEVERMIND.

16. how did all the animals of the world get to one place?
   WALKED?

17. how did he create the right conditons for all the animals?
   GEE, A GOD THAT CAN CREATE AN ENTIRE UNIVERSE, YEAH, CLIMATE CONTROL IS PROBABLY BEYOND HIM.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 6:20 PM on November 1, 2006 | IP
threefigureminimum

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1. What sort of answer is that? We use the decimal system because we have 10 digits, my question was why do we have ten digits!
2. The appendix is no longer used in humans, so my question was why do we have one if we have never used it!
3. WTF? What do you mean DNA is pointless? How do you explain GM crops and animals?
4. What!? I mean the animals that we don't see today, why would God have created all these animals only to make them all extinct.
5. Give me an example
6.The tectonic plates are moving. The tectonic plates have moved a lot in the last few billion years. Tectonic plates do not move much in a couple thousand years or however long you think the Earth has been around. So I think you'll find it has quite a lot to do with creation.
7. Why would God make an expanding universe? whats the point?
8. Why did God create dinosaurs to make them extinct in a few hundred years?
9. Same question
10-12. you're an idiot
13. You really, really are an idiot! What happens to freshwater fish in saltwater? Umm they die.
14. Typo I meant plants
15. umm yeah micobes would die
16. Ok, so these animals walked over the ocean and over distances that they couldn't possibly complete in their lifetimes.
17. Same as 10-12
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 5:44 PM on November 2, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1)  Why not six?  Birds get away with six?  What does the number of digits have to do with God?  I'm not following your logic.

2)  Yes, the appendix is used.  Buy an anatomy book.

3)  Chuckle.  It's called sarcasm.

4)  There are many people to day that no longer exist.  There are many species of animals that have been killed off by man.  One day it's all going to be destroyed by fire.  What does the fact that you don't understand it have to do with it happening or not?

5)  In 1958 Dr. Johannes Huerzeler of the Museum of Natural History found a child's human jawbone inside a coal seam that had been carbon dated at twenty million years.  

6)  So you're saying they weren't moving six (or so) thousand years ago?  Not following your point.

7)  You'll have to ask Him.

8)  Basically you're just repeating question 4.  Guess it looks like "more" evidence that way.

9)  Same answer.

10-12)  You're saying you can't find any miracles in the Bible?

13)  See above.

14)  Just how long do you think this Flood lasted?  

15)  Microbes can survive in saltwater.  Try again.

16)  Who said that prior to the flood all animals that exist couldn't survive in the same place.  Reread Genesis.

17)  Same as 10-12


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 8:51 PM on November 2, 2006 | IP
threefigureminimum

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Never mind. Theres no point in debating with creationists. Any question that I would pose can have the answer "its a miracle". You can't argue science with religion, one is based on facts that have been tried and tested the other is based on an invisible voice in your head.
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 06:16 AM on November 3, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Nice duck.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 8:03 PM on November 3, 2006 | IP
joeferrari15

|       |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wait, EMyers, there's a use for the appendix?

Do share. No anatomy book that I've read knows of one. And they're typically written by PhD's.

As for your comment on the inaccuracy of carbon dating....You can't possibly deny the validity of the science behind it. As for your example of the misdating, could you provide a source for it?
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 10:16 PM on November 3, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In reverse order...

Harroux, One Hundred Thousand Years of Man’s Unknown History, 1970, p. 29

"The mucosa and submucosa of the appendix are dominated by lymphoid nodules, and the appendix's primary function is as an organ of the lymphatic system." (Fundamentals of Anatomy and Physiology)


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 3:10 PM on November 4, 2006 | IP
joeferrari15

|       |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Currently, the function of the appendix, if any, remains controversial in the field of human physiology. It has been known to cause the ability to process bark, leaves and other things of that nature.

There have been cases of people who have been found, usually on laparoscopy or laparotomy, to have a congenital absence of their appendix. There have been no reports of impaired immune or gastrointestinal function in these people."

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermiform_appendix

Fair enough. I suppose it is indeed disputed. Thanks for the source as well.
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 3:19 PM on November 4, 2006 | IP
evolutions_fake

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from threefigureminimum at 06:16 AM on November 3, 2006 :
Never mind. Theres no point in debating with creationists. Any question that I would pose can have the answer "its a miracle". You can't argue science with religion, one is based on facts that have been tried and tested the other is based on an invisible voice in your head.



Firstly, since when has evolution ever been proved? Has there been any studies to prove that ANYTHING can evolve??? No scientific experiment could prove or disprove either evolution or creation!

The only modern day example evolutionists have is the example of the Peppered Moth.

Now lets look at this:

Just what happened to the peppered moth? At first, the lighter form of this moth was more common than the darker form. This lighter type blended well into the lighter-colored trunks of trees and so was more protected from birds. But then, because of years of pollution from industrial areas, tree trunks became darkened. Now the moths’ lighter color worked against them, as birds could pick them out faster and eat them. Consequently the darker variety of peppered moth, which is said to be a mutant, survived better because it was difficult for birds to see them against the soot-darkened trees. The darker variety rapidly became the dominant type.

But was the peppered moth evolving into some other type of insect? No, it was still exactly the same peppered moth, merely having a different coloration! Hence, this is an excellent demonstration of the function of camouflage, but, since it begins and ends with moths and no new species is formed, it is irrelevant as evidence for evolution!

You evolutionists say that we creationists just put everything down to a mirricle and provide no proof, well...where's your proof? It is widely accepted that it is virtually never possible in evolution to prove anything.

I have one of many questions for you also, which came first, the chicken or the egg?

What I mean is on a biological level, which came first, proteins or DNA? Proteins depend on DNA for their formation. But DNA cannot form without pre-existing protein! The answere must be that they both developed at the same time....hmmm does that sound reasonable to you? That somehow the proteins thought to themselves "hey, we better develope so that we can form DNA!"
Of course not! Now wouldn't it be more reasonable to believe that an inteligent being caused this to happen? I.E. the greatest scientist of all; GOD?

Take another example, what to you think the chances are of you throwing your mobile/cell phone out into space and leaving it for some time (lets not upset the evolutionists here, lets say a 100 million years) and it forming into something new? A million to one? Imposible? Wouldn't it be great if the phone turned into a computer with feelings and speach etc etc??!! How dumb is that?! More like it would run out of battery and malfunction. Now you answere me this, which is more complex, living organisms or a mobile phone? Yep I'd say its the organisms. Now if something as simple as a mobile phone (simple compared to life) cannot possibly evolve by accident, what's the chance of something mind bogglingly complex evolving?

You mention about the fossil record, yeah what about it? The fossil record disproves evolution! You're digging your own grave. If evolution were a fact, the fossil evidence would surely reveal a gradual changing from one kind of life into another. And that would have to be the case regardless of which variation of evolutionary theory is accepted. Even scientists who believe in the more rapid changes associated with the “punctuated equilibrium” theory acknowledge that there would still have been many thousands of years during which these changes supposedly took place. So it is not reasonable to believe that there would be no need at all for linking fossils. Also, if evolution were founded in fact, the fossil record would be expected to reveal beginnings of new structures in living things. There should be at least some fossils with developing arms, legs, wings, eyes, and other bones and organs. For instance, there should be fish fins changing into amphibian legs with feet and toes, and gills changing into lungs. There should be reptiles with front limbs changing into bird wings, back limbs changing into legs with claws, scales changing into feathers, and mouths changing into horny beaks. As Darwin himself asserted: “The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, must be truly enormous.”
If we developed from apes over thousands or even millions of years, surely there would be more apemen evidence than dinosores?

You need to do your research before dismissing religious people as being simple minded...after all, not all thinking scientists believe in evolution.

Ps, God created 5 fingers on each hand for those who were gifted with a brain and don't need to count fingers to work out mathematical problems, but obviously you must have six fingers...that is, if you've evolved past the ape yet

Pps, why didnt we evolve an extra finger if it's more usefull?
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 1:24 PM on December 12, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Firstly, since when has evolution ever been proved? Has there been any studies to prove that ANYTHING can evolve??? No scientific experiment could prove or disprove either evolution or creation!


Oh man. I can only describe this as sad. Unfortunately, I have a research paper due to tomorrow, so it will have to wait.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 6:47 PM on December 12, 2006 | IP
Amme

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, firstly, the whole "never been proved" thing is flawed in that, the whole idea of a scientific theory is that it can never be proven, it can only ever have evidence supporting it, or it can be disproven. But for goodness sake, it's still called the "theory of gravity" because it can't be (or, at least, has yet to be) disproven. Are you really going to deny the existence of gravity?

The peppered moth is only one of many examples, most examples being to do with bacteria (ie, the "super bug"), but you have to understand that the modern day "examples of evolution" are mainly examples of natural selection. For instance, in the example of the peppered moth, because of the natural environment, the characteristics of the majority of the species changed.
There are a few points to note here:
Firstly, the original light coloured moths didn't die out completely.
Secondly, the only part of the DNA which was selected for, at this point, was the colour of the wings. This is not a significant enough change to make an entirely new species.
And thirdly, this change didn't last nearly long enough to have enough influence on the DNA of the population to create a new species (a species being defined by whether the individuals within the population of that species can interbreed - in this case, the light and the dark coloured moths could still interbreed, thus no new species). True evolution happens over millions of years, and so of course we're not going to see "true" modern day evolution, only natural selection resulting in changes in a species' physical characteristics, not creations of new species - we haven't even been studying it for 200 years!

The reason people use the peppered moth as an example is because it's an example of natural selection. The point evolutionists make with this is that they can use this as an example of how the environment can influence a population of a certain species. After time, the mutations and changes that occur can create a species entirely different to the one you had originally. The thing is though, these changes are few and far between (there are a certain number of genetic mutations that happen every generation - most of them minor, but they all add up over time) which is why evolution happens over such a long period of time. The Peppered Moth example is one of the short-term examples of how evolution works through diversity within a species and natural selection selecting for only a certain group of diversities/a certain diversity.

As for DNA, this is a problem evolutionists have been trying to figure out. It doesn't mean that evolution is disproven, it simply means there are things we don't know. The current theory (as far as I'm aware) is that the first form of any kind of DNA was RNA, which is effectively a simpler form of DNA. I don't know that much about this side of evolution, and this is one of those things that could be found out to be wrong in the near future, but at the moment it is looking the most likely option - obviously, though, at the moment there are more studies needing to be done into it. I'm happy to find literature for you if you like, or you can find it yourself if you want more information, I'm sorry I don't have any on hand right now.

Unfortunately, no, it wouldn't be more reasonable to suggest that an intelligent god thought it up, it's far more reasonable to assume we don't know all the facts, and continue searching, rather than relying on an idea that may or may not be true, but by all accounts has little if not no sufficient evidence to back it up.

For all intents and purposes, the cell phone, if put in the right conditions, and left for a long enough time, could in fact turn into life. Now, this would require a significant amount of altering, not just of the phone itself, but of the molecules and atoms in it (I'm not so sure the elements that make up a mobile phone would be sufficient enough to create life as we know it - they would probably have to undergo some kind of fussion/fission or something to make anything useful, but then under the right circumstances, I guess anything can turn into life).

But that's beside the point, because evolution says nothing about how life was created to begin with, it simply deals with life after it has begun, so your point is irrelevant.

I believe I read the fossil point being dealt with in other posts, but I will reiterate here:
Not every living thing that dies is fossilised - the process of fossilisation is a long one and requires very specific circumstances to create. As a result, not only will you not have very many fossils, but you may not ever find fossils of every single living thing that ever existed. Beyond that, you must only accept that we haven't found all the fossils ever created anyway, so at this point in time bringing up any gaps in our current fossil record is futile at best - especially considering the fossils we've found so far that all support the current idea that species slowly changed and characteristics were slowly developed over time, and continue to. We are always finding new fossils that either adhere to or expand our knowledge or evolutionary processes. There's nothing that I know of within the fossils found that "disprove" the theory of evolution. I think that would be a pretty big discovery that more people would know about, myself included.

And finally, you don't just evolve something because it's "more useful". You can't just decide that you're going to develop this feature, or that feature. There's nothing about us having five fingers that makes us any less able to survive, and birds come from an entirely different evolutionary path, and obviously 6 "fingers" was beneficial to them. It's a common trait (correct me if I'm wrong here) of mammals to have 5 digits, it's just simply one of those things that happens. We're far from perfect, I can name a million things that we don't have and that we should, but that's not how things panned out. If anything that helps confirm for me that evolution was the process to develop life, not an intelligent designer. But by all means, it could have been both.


-------
Signed
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 8:14 PM on December 13, 2006 | IP
blade

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As a great deal of creationism revolves around the flood, do you think it would be a good idea
if we established wether or not the flood actually did happen,
it is important because a lot of the things we see around us today were supposedly caused by the flood,
so may I suggest we dispense with belief and concentrate on the facts,
the reason I say this is because no matter how much we may believe something happened,
that alone does not mean that it did happen.

A question about the flood.
If it was a global flood, meaning every part of the earths suface was covered with water,
where did the water go when it stopped raining?

(Edited by blade 12/14/2006 at 3:33 PM).
 


Posts: 10 | Posted: 3:32 PM on December 14, 2006 | IP
rockclimber_10

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think it is silly not to believe in evolution (although I still respect people that do not). The evidence is overwhelming and people who reject it, I believe, are not being true to themselves. I recently read an article about one of the most recent known occurrences of human evolution. There was evidence that people in East Africa had recently (~3,000 years ago) evolved due to the domestication of cattle. People in that area that could tolerate the milk sugar lactose were at a major advantage to those that could not...and therefore natural selection took over and later generations had a less lactose intolerant population.

I also think it is silly to think that science can answer any question set before it. Some kind of help was needed to get things started in the beginning (and according to surveys done in the 40’s and 90’s, ~40% of the world’s scientists agree). Questions like “Why are we here?,” “Why do human have a Moral Law,” and “Why is there a constant worldwide longing for the sacred?.”  

But to answer the questions about creation...some believe that when GOD created the universe, the “seven days” it took to do so (168 hours, 10,080 minutes, or 604,800 seconds) may not have the same temporality as it does today. Why couldn’t have GOD speed up time (or some other method of letting things evolve that we couldn’t possibly understand and science has yet to witness)? This, along with the acceptance of evolution, would explain many of the questions listed in the first post (including 4-6, 8, and 9). As for the questions that it doesn’t answer, Christians (or at least most Christians I know) don’t claim to have every answer...that is why we say GOD works in mysterious ways. So, numbers 1, 2, and 7 are best answered by present and future science.

Questions 10-17 are all about, in my opinion, a story from the Bible intended to teach a lesson, not a literal historical account.

A really good book for someone struggling with this issue (creationism vs. science) should check out one of the many books like The Language of God, by Francis S. Collins (the former head of the Human Genome Project and a devout Christian). There are people who believe that science and faith can work together and even complement one another.

This is just my opinion and I have no problem with everyone believing what they want to believe.



-------
"God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible...science is not threatened by God; it is enhanced"
 


Posts: 52 | Posted: 5:43 PM on December 19, 2006 | IP
blade

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from rockclimber_10 at 5:43 PM on December 19, 2006 :
This is just my opinion and I have no problem with everyone believing what they want to believe.



This is the BIG problem, I don't think it is YOUR opinion, I think it is someone elses opinion, you didn't think all of this up for yourself, you were brought up to believe this and you are just mouthing the words you have been taught.
Of coarse you wont agree with me, everything you believe is what YOU truly believe, and it has nothing to do with anyone else, and you truly believe you came to this conclusion all by yourself.



 


Posts: 10 | Posted: 10:30 AM on December 24, 2006 | IP
rockclimber_10

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from blade at 10:30 AM on December 24, 2006 :
Quote from rockclimber_10 at 5:43 PM on December 19, 2006 :
This is just my opinion and I have no problem with everyone believing what they want to believe.



This is the BIG problem, I don't think it is YOUR opinion, I think it is someone elses opinion, you didn't think all of this up for yourself, you were brought up to believe this and you are just mouthing the words you have been taught.
Of coarse you wont agree with me, everything you believe is what YOU truly believe, and it has nothing to do with anyone else, and you truly believe you came to this conclusion all by yourself.






I'll take this as a compliment (and a possible concession??)

But you don't know me...so how can claim to know how I was brought up? Or how I came to my "conclusions?"

If you claim to know this, which truly is impossible, what does this kind of statement do for your credibility on this forum? Are you willing to claim anything? Aren't you being a little hypocritical when you say I'm crazy for saying "I believe in GOD," and then you make statements like this?

By the way, I said it was "my opinion" because it is. I didn't say it was all my idea (actually I said "some believe" and even referred to a book, where I read about it!). This is much like your problem with the words proof and evidence. Please give it some thought before you post something.


-------
"God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible...science is not threatened by God; it is enhanced"
 


Posts: 52 | Posted: 3:05 PM on December 24, 2006 | IP
blade

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from rockclimber_10 at 3:05 PM on December 24, 2006 :
Quote from blade at 10:30 AM on December 24, 2006 :
Quote from rockclimber_10 at 5:43 PM on December 19, 2006 :
This is just my opinion and I have no problem with everyone believing what they want to believe.



This is the BIG problem, I don't think it is YOUR opinion, I think it is someone elses opinion, you didn't think all of this up for yourself, you were brought up to believe this and you are just mouthing the words you have been taught.
Of coarse you wont agree with me, everything you believe is what YOU truly believe, and it has nothing to do with anyone else, and you truly believe you came to this conclusion all by yourself.






I'll take this as a compliment (and a possible concession??)

But you don't know me...so how can claim to know how I was brought up? Or how I came to my "conclusions?"

If you claim to know this, which truly is impossible, what does this kind of statement do for your credibility on this forum? Are you willing to claim anything? Aren't you being a little hypocritical when you say I'm crazy for saying "I believe in GOD," and then you make statements like this?

By the way, I said it was "my opinion" because it is. I didn't say it was all my idea (actually I said "some believe" and even referred to a book, where I read about it!). This is much like your problem with the words proof and evidence. Please give it some thought before you post something.


You are right I don't know you, but I do know that most Christians are taught to be Christians from birth, if the teaching is left until the child grows up they are 'usually' lost to religion for ever, which in itself tells you something about religion, if it was so wonderful it would be believed by every one not just people who were captured at birth,
that's why I said it didn't apply to you because you were not 'got at' from birth, or were you?



 


Posts: 10 | Posted: 11:21 AM on December 26, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

but I do know that most Christians are taught to be Christians from birth

Actually, the strongest Christians I know are the ones who discover it as adults who weren't brought up "in church".  This is usually because they've weighed the evidence and decided for themselves that Christianity is true.  Many who "grow up in church" fall away as they get older (but then most children start challenging what their parents tell them at one point or another), though many come "back to church" years later.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 3:22 PM on December 26, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

but I do know that most Christians are taught to be Christians from birth

Actually, the strongest Christians I know are the ones who discover it as adults who weren't brought up "in church".  This is usually because they've weighed the evidence and decided for themselves that Christianity is true.  Many who "grow up in church" fall away as they get older (but then most children start challenging what their parents tell them at one point or another), though many come "back to church" years later.


It really depends. I think that nowadays, what you say is true, though that wasn't the case one generation ago. My grandparents were all brought up in church, and they were just as feverish about it as their parents.

Now, though, I think you're right; my dad went to a Catholic school, but our family simply decided to stop attending one day.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 4:11 PM on December 26, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sadly, I think it's because most denominations now teach such a watered-down "everyone is ok" version of Christianity that most people don't see any difference between "Christians" and everyone else.  I've met people who have mentioned (without me bringing up religion) within 5 minutes things like "you don't cuss, do you?".  The bible says "by their fruits you shall know them" but so many Christian's today... their fruits look the same as those who are not...


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 7:12 PM on December 26, 2006 | IP
rockclimber_10

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 4:11 PM on December 26, 2006 :
but I do know that most Christians are taught to be Christians from birth

Actually, the strongest Christians I know are the ones who discover it as adults who weren't brought up "in church".  This is usually because they've weighed the evidence and decided for themselves that Christianity is true.  Many who "grow up in church" fall away as they get older (but then most children start challenging what their parents tell them at one point or another), though many come "back to church" years later.


It really depends. I think that nowadays, what you say is true, though that wasn't the case one generation ago.




I agree.





-------
"God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible...science is not threatened by God; it is enhanced"
 


Posts: 52 | Posted: 02:07 AM on December 27, 2006 | IP
rockclimber_10

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from blade at 11:21 AM on December 26, 2006 :
Quote from rockclimber_10 at 3:05 PM on December 24, 2006 :
Quote from blade at 10:30 AM on December 24, 2006 :
Quote from rockclimber_10 at 5:43 PM on December 19, 2006 :
This is just my opinion and I have no problem with everyone believing what they want to believe.



This is the BIG problem, I don't think it is YOUR opinion, I think it is someone elses opinion, you didn't think all of this up for yourself, you were brought up to believe this and you are just mouthing the words you have been taught.
Of coarse you wont agree with me, everything you believe is what YOU truly believe, and it has nothing to do with anyone else, and you truly believe you came to this conclusion all by yourself.






I'll take this as a compliment (and a possible concession??)

But you don't know me...so how can claim to know how I was brought up? Or how I came to my "conclusions?"

If you claim to know this, which truly is impossible, what does this kind of statement do for your credibility on this forum? Are you willing to claim anything? Aren't you being a little hypocritical when you say I'm crazy for saying "I believe in GOD," and then you make statements like this?

By the way, I said it was "my opinion" because it is. I didn't say it was all my idea (actually I said "some believe" and even referred to a book, where I read about it!). This is much like your problem with the words proof and evidence. Please give it some thought before you post something.


You are right I don't know you, but I do know that most Christians are taught to be Christians from birth, if the teaching is left until the child grows up they are 'usually' lost to religion for ever, which in itself tells you something about religion, if it was so wonderful it would be believed by every one not just people who were captured at birth,
that's why I said it didn't apply to you because you were not 'got at' from birth, or were you?






Your claim to "know" how most Christians come to be Christians is a ridiculous blanket statement. As is the comment about how non adolescents are "usually lost" to religion.

Maybe you meant to start with, "In my experiences..." or "I seems to me that..."

You won't look quite as ignorant if you try this.


-------
"God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible...science is not threatened by God; it is enhanced"
 


Posts: 52 | Posted: 02:09 AM on December 27, 2006 | IP
blade

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Your claim to "know" how most Christians come to be Christians is a ridiculous blanket statement. As is the comment about how non adolescents are "usually lost" to religion.

Maybe you meant to start with, "In my experiences..." or "I seems to me that..."

You won't look quite as ignorant if you try this.


That's it, play with the words if it makes you feel better.
The truth is we all "KNOW" religion would die in two generations if parents stopped telling their children about it, in three "THERE WOULD BE NO GOD"



 


Posts: 10 | Posted: 12:56 PM on December 27, 2006 | IP
rockclimber_10

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thats an interesting idea...maybe you should start a new thread with it and we can get some other input about it


-------
"God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible...science is not threatened by God; it is enhanced"
 


Posts: 52 | Posted: 2:54 PM on December 27, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Shhhh!  If we all quit talking about blade he will cease to exist.  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 12:53 AM on December 28, 2006 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sounds like a good idea. Maybe if we stop talking about car accidents they would cease to exist too.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 7:21 PM on January 7, 2007 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.