Originally posted by ThePittman
Many people give up on religion after a loved one dies.
I would too but I would not give up on Jesus Christ. I keep telling you all that religion is not the answer to life's struggles. Jesus Christ is. I do not subscribe to religion I believe in a Person. That is why Christianity is not a religion. It is really a Person, Jesus Christ. We have a relationship with God through Jesus Christ. We have hope now and in the hereafter. Religion is a means to an end. The end being a relationship (fellowship) with God. That is what people are searching for. But instead of coming to God through Jesus (as the Bible instructs) people have tried to get to God through self-effort (i.e., this man-made thing called religion). Religion has nothing to do with God. Religion is not some "thing" out in a vacuum. It is something that is man-made for the purpose of approaching God. But it is not the answer. Jesus is the answer.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I would too but I would not give up on Jesus Christ. I keep telling you all that religion is not the answer to life's struggles. Jesus Christ is. I do not subscribe to religion I believe in a Person. That is why Christianity is not a religion. It is really a Person, Jesus Christ. We have a relationship with God through Jesus Christ. We have hope now and in the hereafter. Religion is a means to an end. The end being a relationship (fellowship) with God. That is what people are searching for. But instead of coming to God through Jesus (as the Bible instructs) people have tried to get to God through self-effort (i.e., this man-made thing called religion). Religion has nothing to do with God. Religion is not some "thing" out in a vacuum. It is something that is man-made for the purpose of approaching God. But it is not the answer. Jesus is the answer.
If you've never experienced the loss of your child, how do you know?
Originally posted by Alliance
If you've never experienced the loss of your child, how do you know?
Yes, I have seen it plenty of times in my studies.
It is easy to say "Don't be sad, he is with Jesus now, these things happen for a reason, I wouldn't let it get me down because I trust God's plan" etc when one is not experiancing it - very rarely is it like that when it is the person who have previously adivsed like that looses someone - then they discover the exact same feelings, the exact same doubts.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Yes, I have seen it plenty of times in my studies.It is easy to say "Don't be sad, he is with Jesus now, these things happen for a reason, I wouldn't let it get me down because I trust God's plan" etc when one is not experiancing it - very rarely is it like that when it is the person who have previously adivsed like that looses someone - then they discover the exact same feelings, the exact same doubts.
What are you studying?
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
What are you studying?
A degree in psychology appropriately enough, looking to head down the clinical path, probably in the government sector.
AnywayYou would be surprised that faith often isn't always the comfort people believe it is - in fact it can be the oppisite. When you have some one of steadfast faith who has kept the Bible and its teachings close (or any other religion) and then they are struck by tragady, well, it takes an interesting kind of person who doesn't at some level go "why?"
And from that "why" things can change. Not saying everyone looses there faith (though some do or they change it) or that they don't deal with it, and some leave it only to come back later, but the point is that it isn't always the comfort you imagine.
What say you Imperial Samura about these quotes?
A scientific study of the universe has suggested a conclusion, which may be summed up ... in the statement that the universe appears to have been designed by a pure mathematician.2
--English physicist Sir James
This [conviction in the existence of God] follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity.3
--Charles Darwin
The first conditions that determined the basic constants of nature and the emergence of life were set in place with amazing exactness. To give an idea of how precisely the universe appears to have been constructed, it is enough to think of a golfer who can hit his ball from Earth to a hole on Mars! 7
--Contemporary philosopher Jean Guitton of the French Academy
The fitness... [of these compounds constitutes] a series of maxima-unique or nearly unique properties of water, carbon dioxide, the compounds of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen and the ocean-so numerous, so varied, so complete among all things which are concerned in the problem that together they form certainly the greatest possible fitness.8
--Lawrence Henderson, a professor in Harvard University's department of biological chemistry
The fitness of water [for life] would in all probability be less if its viscosity were much lower. The structures of living systems would be subject to far more violent movements under shearing forces if the viscosity were as low as liquid hydrogen... If the viscosity of water was much lower, delicate structures would be easily disrupted . . . and water would be incapable of supporting any permanent intricate microscopic structures. The delicate molecular architecture of the cell would probably not survive.
If the viscosity was higher, the controlled movement of large macromolecules and particularly structures such as mitochondria and small organelles would be impossible, as would processes like cell division. All the vital activities of the cell would be effectively frozen, and cellular life of any sort remotely resembling that with which we are familiar would be impossible. The development of higher organisms, which is critically dependent on the ability of cells to move and crawl around during embryogenesis, would certainly be impossible if the viscosity of water was even slightly greater than it is.10
--molecular biologist Michael Denton
Plants do not proliferate in a field to the point where they become crowded. They do not engage in a "struggle for existence" where natural selection would preserve the strong and destroy the weak. Plants tend to control their populations by sensing the density of the planting. When the growth is dense, plants produce less seeds; when growth is thin, they produce more seeds.11
--Israeli biophysicist Lee M. Spetner
Nothing is more extraordinary in the history of the Vegetable Kingdom, as it seems to me, than the apparently very sudden or abrupt development of the higher plants.12
--Charles Darwin
... I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. If, however, another explanation could be found for this hierarchy of classification, it would be the knell of the theory of evolution. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition.13
--Dr. Eldred Corner of Cambridge University
How does an acorn know it has to grow into an oak tree and not into a sunflower? . . . The science of biology took a pivotal turn about 40 years ago when biologists began to learn how information plays its role in living organisms. We have discovered the location of the information in the organism that tells it how to function and how to grow, how to live and how to reproduce. The information is in the seed as well as in the plant; it's in the egg as well as in the chicken. The egg passes the information to the chicken it becomes, and the chicken passes it to the egg it lays, and so on.14
--Dr. Lee Spetner
Indeed, the only competing explanation for the order we all see in the biological world is the notion of Special Creation.16
--well-known paleontologist and curator of the American Museum of Natural History Niles Eldredge
… What spectacular variety we see among living things, both variation within kind and the stupendous number of different kinds. Most of us are awed by the spectacular variation in color, size, form, features, and function we see both within and among the incredible diversity of living things that grace our planet. Why so much variation?20
--former evolutionist Professor Gary E. Parker came to the conclusion (along with many other scientists) that the theory of evolution was invalid. He based this conclusion on research he conducted into paleontology and biology.
So wonderful an instinct as that of the hive-bee making its cells will probably have occurred to many readers, as a difficulty sufficient to overthrow my whole theory.21
--Charles Darwin
I remember well the time when the thought of the [amazingly complex structure of the] eye made me cold all over, but I have got over this stage of complaint... and now, trifling particulars of structure often make me very uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peacock's tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick! 23
--Charles Darwin
The first, and main, problem is the very existence of the big bang. One may wonder, What came before? If space-time did not exist then, how could everything appear from nothing? What arose first: the universe or the laws determining its evolution? Explaining this initial singularity-where and when it all began-still remains the most intractable problem of modern cosmology.7
--Andrei Linde
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
What say you Imperial Samura about these quotes?
That they are a number of sound bites taken out of context because they support the procreation lobbies claims? That they fail to take into account the sciences and meanings behind the words chosen out of context to support the ID theory? And thus fail to recognise the ultimate purpose behind the works from which they have been cut which in fact don't necessarily support ID/creationism at all?
That some are based upon non-central theorum and are popular with the procreation lobby simply because they support there stance even if they don't, in fact, get quite as much recognition from the greater scientific community?
The first, and main, problem is the very existence of the big bang. One may wonder, What came before? If space-time did not exist then, how could everything appear from nothing? What arose first: the universe or the laws determining its evolution? Explaining this initial singularity-where and when it all began-still remains the most intractable problem of modern cosmology.7
--Andrei Linde
This one in particular highlights the poor arguments of creationist's and/or ID supporters - the classic "we can't support our own theory so we will merely attack the opponents better evidenced case" - you see a hole in the evidence does not in fact disprove the rest of the theory!
Fancy that!
Shocking I know - but that is what happens. It has happened all through scientific history. People have made theories, but haven't bee sufficiently advanced to support them fully. But with time... the holes are often filled. Ultimately a hole in evolution does not prove creationism. You see... it doesn't work like that.
JIA. When you start to post evidence, let me know. I'll come back to debate you.
Sound bytes taken out of context are absurd. YOu have shown again and again that you are uncabable of even wanting to understand what Natural Selection is. This makes you ignorant, but clearly without authoriy to judge the situation.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
That they are a number of sound bites taken out of context because they support the procreation lobbies claims? That they fail to take into account the sciences and meanings behind the words chosen out of context to support the ID theory? And thus fail to recognise the ultimate purpose behind the works from which they have been cut which in fact don't necessarily support ID/creationism at all?That some are based upon non-central theorum and are popular with the procreation lobby simply because they support there stance even if they don't, in fact, get quite as much recognition from the greater scientific community?
This one in particular highlights the poor arguments of creationist's and/or ID supporters - the classic "we can't support our own theory so we will merely attack the opponents better evidenced case" - you see a hole in the evidence does not in fact disprove the rest of the theory!
Fancy that!
Shocking I know - but that is what happens. It has happened all through scientific history. People have made theories, but haven't bee sufficiently advanced to support them fully. But with time... the holes are often filled. Ultimately a hole in evolution does not prove creationism. You see... it doesn't work like that.
Well, I commend your stab at answering the post.