a case for christ

[copernicus 0]

so they are random now? that would contradict others who say its not random...yall really need to decide what yall are going to stick with.

No one who understands evolution says that mutations arent random. Show me one scientist who says they arent.

[MDXS 0]

At this point in the conversation, I'd like to thank Copernicus for stepping in and keeping up the good fight. Hopefully you can keep it up because I cannot believe that after 8 threads of this, Matt STILL doesn't understand the concepts behind evolution.Thank you for saving me the time and frustration. (Not ignoring you, Timmeh, but I haven't noticed Copernicus in these threads yet...maybe it's just a new avatar, I have no idea.)

[Mattnxtc 0]

At this point in the conversation, I'd like to thank Copernicus for stepping in and keeping up the good fight. Hopefully you can keep it up because I cannot believe that after 8 threads of this, Matt STILL doesn't understand the concepts behind evolution.Thank you for saving me the time and frustration. (Not ignoring you, Timmeh, but I haven't noticed Copernicus in these threads yet...maybe it's just a new avatar, I have no idea.)

Hey its hard to keep up. Earlier I was told that these mutations arent random, now I am being told they are. So how can i keep up with a theory that seems to be changing week to week. I think yall need to get together and decide what theory you are going to stick with. It makes it a lot easier to discuss something like this

[copernicus 0]

Hey its hard to keep up. Earlier I was told that these mutations arent random, now I am being told they are. So how can i keep up with a theory that seems to be changing week to week. I think yall need to get together and decide what theory you are going to stick with. It makes it a lot easier to discuss something like this

The theory doesnt change week to week. Maybe your incomplete understanding of it does, but the thory doesnt. Again..show me one theory of natural selection where mutations are not random. You cant find one.

At this point in the conversation, I'd like to thank Copernicus for stepping in and keeping up the good fight. Hopefully you can keep it up because I cannot believe that after 8 threads of this, Matt STILL doesn't understand the concepts behind evolution.Thank you for saving me the time and frustration. (Not ignoring you, Timmeh, but I haven't noticed Copernicus in these threads yet...maybe it's just a new avatar, I have no idea.)

No, Im new to the threads here. I spend most of my "evoloution" time debunking the nonsense of a max clone at 2p2 named Sharkey. Well...not quite clones...Sharkey retreats to big words that sound relevant but actually have no meaning in context, while max isnt even strong enough in his understanding to do that.

[timwakefield 68]

Whats ironic is your two statements. You say certainly some vision is better than no vision yet in the very next statement you say vision doesnt evolve. Therefore you either contradict yourself or more likely will make the argument that evolution doesnt predict it. But again. that seems to say evolution is just a random thing.

I didn't say vision doesn't evolve (although technically it is the species, not the trait, which evolves). I said that we shouldn't expect it to always continue evolving forever. Homo sapiens will (probably) never be able to see as well as a hawk....And I agree Copernicus....it's nice to see you around these parts.

[copernicus 0]

I didn't say vision doesn't evolve (although technically it is the species, not the trait, which evolves). I said that we shouldn't expect it to always continue evolving forever. Homo sapiens will (probably) never be able to see as well as a hawk....And I agree Copernicus....it's nice to see you around these parts.

Thanks..but if the arguments continue to be as weak as max's I'll lose interest quickly and go back to Sharkey hunting, lol.

[timwakefield 68]

Thanks..but if the arguments continue to be as weak as max's I'll lose interest quickly and go back to Sharkey hunting, lol.

You should check out some of the other old threads....I'm sure you would enjoy the article about how dinosaurs didn't exist.

[MDXS 0]

You should check out some of the other old threads....I'm sure you would enjoy the article about how dinosaurs didn't exist.

Heh...don't forget the one that argued for the existence of dragons.

[Loismustdie 0]

You should check out some of the other old threads....I'm sure you would enjoy the article about how dinosaurs didn't exist.

A guy can't have an opinion?

[BuffDan 0]

so they are random now? that would contradict others who say its not random...yall really need to decide what yall are going to stick with.

Ok, I don't really understand much about evolution, and I'm sure this argument has been made, but let me try my hand at it: Mutations ARE random. The long term effects of said mutations are NOT random. Thus, any patricular mutation is random, but if a mutation leads to a characteristic that gives the creature a better chance for survival, in the LONG RUN, we will tend to see more creatures with said characteristic, as more of the creatures who have that characteristic will survive to reproduce and pass it on. Now, you can argue that some of these benefits are extremely marginal, but ask the owner of any casino (or any successful poker player for that matter) how in the long run even a marginal edge can create a HUGE effect.

[Mattnxtc 0]

I didn't say vision doesn't evolve (although technically it is the species, not the trait, which evolves). I said that we shouldn't expect it to always continue evolving forever. Homo sapiens will (probably) never be able to see as well as a hawk....And I agree Copernicus....it's nice to see you around these parts.

so evolution is not guided but it does seem to be controlled but it is random?

[timwakefield 68]

so evolution is not guided

correct

but it does seem to be controlled

only by the laws of nature

but it is random?

incorrect

[Mattnxtc 0]

only by the laws of nature

and who made the laws of nature? random chance?

[LongLiveYorke 38]

and who made the laws of nature? random chance?

We don't know. They could be deterministic, they could be arbitrary, or they could vary. I'll let you know when we figure it out.

[Necheva 0]

Daniel, I've read both the Case for Christ and the Case for Faith and they changed my life. The fact of the matter is most people don't want to believe God because they fear "The Man" or "The Government" is going to run their life. But I say to that, "Don't let man be the reason you refuse to trust God". Here you have some guy (Lee Strobel), who used to be a professing atheist, set out to disprove the Bible but only finds evidence to support Jesus is the Son of God. And that's something that we must all consider. Jesus claimed to be God. Muhammed, Ghandi, Budda - they never made such claim. Maybe their followers made that claim for them, but they never made it themselves. Most people do not even know this bit of trivial knowledge nor do they care. "I just believe that all long as you're generally good you'll make it into heaven!" How many times have I heard that statement! We don't make the rules people...God does! He loves us and all we have to do is accept and believe the sacrifice he made FOR us. But we can't even do that can we? I'm not trying to put an unbeliever down or anything because we were all unbelievers at one point. I'm just trying to point out the arogance that unbelievers have. They lack humility. It's not their fault of their own though, that's a God given gift and Negraneu clearly has it. He's doing you all a huge favor as a celebrity and abasing himself to be with the likes of us. And what do we do? We say, 'thanks....thanks for nuthin'. I have a high respect for Negreanu because I'm sure he has taken hits from the Christian community as well because 'gamblin' just aint right'. Can't you see that Negreanu is a true Christian whereas many who claim to be Christains aren't? Please, open your eyes and DON'T LET MAN KEEP YOU FROM BELIEVING IN GOD! Do a little digging to find the truth...it's out there but we're too self centered or busy to lift a finger to find it."Yeah, churches are just in it because of the money.""Yeah, priests diddle little boys" (big trucker laugh)"I aint going to church, God loves me just the way I am""Churches, that's just religion man....and churches were created by the government because they wanna control you man and charge you extra for gas!""Well, Jesus always did turn the water into wine!""I can worship God at home by watching him on TV." (But do you?)And by the way, the poster that said Daniel wasn't an intellectual BECAUSE he's happens to believe in God, that's a neo-con type of attack if I ever heard one.Acts 4:12 - "Neither is there salvation in ANY other (meaning Jesus), for there is none other name under heaven, given among men whereby we must be saved."Eph 2:8-9 - "By grace are we saved through FAITH, and not that of OURSELVES. It is the gift of God, lest any man should boast."Romans 10:9 - "That if you CONFESS with your mouth the lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God rose him from the dead, you will be SAVED."You don't have to be perfect, but you must admit you're a sinner & in need of forgiveness."Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." - Jesus & John the Baptist.

[MDXS 0]

The fact of the matter is most people don't want to believe God because they fear "The Man" or "The Government" is going to run their life.... ...Jesus claimed to be God. Muhammed, Ghandi, Budda - they never made such claim.... ...I'm just trying to point out the arogance that unbelievers have. They lack humility. It's not their fault of their own though, that's a God given gift and Negraneu clearly has it.

Paragraph 1: This is one I've never heard before. Care to elaborate on it? Paragraph 2: Gahdhi's a curious inclusion there...anyway, how about David Koresh? Paragraph 3: The arrogance goes both ways. Three cheers though to Daniel (seriously...no sw).

[crowTrobot 2]

The fact of the matter is most people don't want to believe God because they fear "The Man" or "The Government" is going to run their life.

no. they don't want to believe because they think christianity is man-made BS.

Here you have some guy (Lee Strobel), who used to be a professing atheist, set out to disprove the Bible but only finds evidence to support Jesus is the Son of God. And that's something that we must all consider.

not if the evidence is based on assumption, subject to biased interpretation, or outright historically inaccurate, and ALL of it is.

Jesus claimed to be God. Muhammed, Ghandi, Budda - they never made such claim. Maybe their followers made that claim for them, but they never made it themselves. Most people do not even know this bit of trivial knowledge nor do they care.

historically there were several kings and other figureheads that claimed to be a god. trivial knowledge, yes.

I'm not trying to put an unbeliever down or anything because we were all unbelievers at one point. I'm just trying to point out the arogance that unbelievers have.

that's a pretty arrogant thing to say.

And by the way, the poster that said Daniel wasn't an intellectual BECAUSE he's happens to believe in God, that's a neo-con type of attack if I ever heard one.

i can only guess what post you're referring to, but DN's is not a christian for intellectual reasons. he believes because it makes him feel good, eases insecurity etc. the strobel book just happened to be the propaganda that gave him an excuse to believe what he already wanted to.WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO baby!!! this is post 666 in this thread!

[MDXS 0]

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO baby!!! this is post 666 in this thread!

Hah! Beat you to it. Though they've discoved that the true mark of the beast is actually 616...whoops!Link.

[crowTrobot 2]

Hah! Beat you to it.

omg! thief! i took 9 minutes too long to reply to that post lol.yeah i've seen that 616 before + other supporting evidence that the "beast" in revelations refers to nero.

[Mattnxtc 0]

not if the evidence is based on assumption, subject to biased interpretation, or outright historically inaccurate, and ALL of it is.

quite an arrogant thing to say...I assume u have evidence for your belief?

[MDXS 0]

omg! thief! i took 9 minutes too long to reply to that post lol.yeah i've seen that 616 before + other supporting evidence that the "beast" in revelations refers to nero.

He'd be a good choice. The badass actually built a collapsable ship to try to drown his mother.

[crowTrobot 2]

quite an arrogant thing to say...I assume u have evidence for your belief?

gonna make me post the case against url again?

[Mattnxtc 0]

gonna make me post the case against url again?

the website that attributes everyting to "propoganda" yeah thats a credible website. I like his approach...its the "when i cant answer it just say its propoganda" approach...tons of historical precedent for that one.

[crowTrobot 2]

the website that attributes everyting to "propoganda" yeah thats a credible website. I like his approach...its the "when i cant answer it just say its propoganda" approach...tons of historical precedent for that one.

ok, since you are gonna misrepresent it i have to link it again. don't say i didn't warn you lol.http://www.bidstrup.com/apologetics.htm

[Mattnxtc 0]

we arent 1 page into the text and we see:

Blomberg is saying here that if writing the Gospels were an exercise in propaganda, the writers would have made an effort at covering up some of the embarrassing or difficult problems, but they did not do so. He goes on to cite some examples.The problem with this claim is that a propaganda

That's really quite easy to explain. The gospels were written quite later than the dates Blomberg assigns to them, and by then there are plenty of other, contradictory gospels around which didn't happen to make it into the Canon.

gospels were quoted by peices we know existed before 64 AD (the death of Peter and Paul) so it makes it hard to believe this. But hey maybe the history is wrong.

But so what? If the gospel writers were inaccurate in the history they wrote, or wrote with a deliberate bias, all the copies in the world aren't going to make up for those biases and inaccuracies.

more propoganda? Hmmm

Here Yamouchi is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. He quotes (without saying who he is quoting) a ninth-century Byzantine writer named George Syncellus, who quotes Julius Africanus, writing in AD 221, who is allegedly quoting Thallus, who wrote in AD 52 about the day the sun went dark on the day of the crucifixion. Well, I'm sorry, but a ninth-century, third person quote doesn't carry much weight with me, considering that every person in the chain of quotation had a doctrinal axe to grind.

yet this is still more accurate than anything else that exists from even 500 AD...imagine that

Yamouchi then goes on to talk about the Talmudic references to Jesus from AD 200 and beyond. Again, since these are nearly two centuries after the events they talk about, they can hardly be considered independent, objective evidence. There's every reason to believe that they could have been very easily influenced by the widespread myths of Christianity that were in circulation by then.

man that is real evidence right there. His opinons are just to strong.

This section is unbelievably unscholarly! Here, Yamouchi simply is quoted, without any references or corroboration whatsoever, as claiming that we have independent evidence apart from the Bible that corroborates five major historical points of Jesus' life: that he was a Jewish teacher; he engaged in healings and exorcisms; that people believed he was the Messiah; that he was rejected by Jewish leaders; and that he was crucified under the authority of Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. I would challenge Mr. Yamouchi (or Lee Strobel, for that matter) to document any of those claims outside the Bible or outside any reference that could easily have been influenced by the Bible or works within it, or outside of any secular references that are not known or strongly suspected of being later Christian interpolations.

still not a shred of evidence...just the opinion of a person who doesnt want to believe. Its a shame reallyI think we see the problems with this "site". Opinions arent facts and well as much as u like them to be they are meaningless...nice try