Post your tough questions in here regarding Christianity

Rostos, having read your "Why Am I Here" post, on the assumption that the current human evolution theory is correct, a demarcation line must exist, since we know philosophically that human intellective powers are irreducibly superior to animal sense powers, and the human spirit cannot emerge gradually. Either a given primate is true man or not. Either this human spirit is present or not. Some primate must be the first true man, wholly and completely, all at once even if the fossil and paleological record fails to reveal that critical point of occurrence in time and place. Animal cognition is forever bound to the singular and concrete sense experiences of its immediate surroundings, human intellective knowledge transcends sensation to grasp the universal truths, write literature, build civilizations and advance technology. Man alone consciously reflects on the meaning of his own existence and writes of it, as debated within this thread. The purpose of human life... is it in the explanation for the existence of man. Evolutionary theory does influence attitudes and morals. Social Darwinism claims that all the behaviors we do, we do bc they provide some selective advantage to the individual or the species. Evolution can explain reciprocal altruism, in l scratch your back, you scratch mine. But can't explain altruistic acts done by humans that are not likely to be returned by the recipient, in the random acts of kindness. Unless the latter is looked at as a long term reward, maybe. Though, every feature of every living thing, including human beings, has an underlying evolutionary background. That's not a debatable matter. If genocide is just an evolutionary adaptation, then how can it be immoral. Morality for myself seems to be a result of choices that people make. Humans appreciate the difference between moral right and wrong, and unlike other creatures, feel pride, shame and guilt which come attached to choices. Moral behavior under evolutionarily selected traits would mean it would improve the survivability of the species. In theory, certain traits of evil through natural selection, should not humans encourage it, rather than suppress it.

You've been on this thread long enough to know the right answer. I know br. Rostos have said it numerous times to you. The Lord gave us freedom of choice. He is not forcing you to be one way or another because he is leaving it up to you.

Aren't you taking any kind of notes as we go along? I suggest you do that.

The eyes of the Lord watch over those who do right, his ears are open to their cries for help. But the Lord turns his face against those who do evil; he will erase their memory from the earth. ---Psalms 34:15-16

Praise the Lord Almighty!!

You need to re-phrase that to

"In the short term i believe there is a purpose to my life, but ultimately in the long term, it means nothing".

Quote Originally Posted by SYSTEM:

God created us to do evil and gave us free will to do evil things , but then we're not suppose to do them What kind of sick twisted shit is this 

If someone gives you a loaded gun, do you HAVE to shoot it?

KittyKatz, lets talk dinosaurs and some more evolution from your talking points. Do we agree that the former didn't coexist with humans and were wiped out around 65 million years ago by a vicious asteroid. Have heard from some that have studied the Bible that they believe that it does mention dinos, though, the word they isolate in its original Hebrew translation can have several meanings, including dragon, serpent, sea monster, or venomous snake. The descriptions claim that the creature was contemporary with the writers of the Bible verses which indicates that this word usually refers to contemporary aquatic animals or snakes and there is no word for dinoasaur in Hebrew to beging with, so in my opinion, dinos are without mention. A theory that comes to mind is that obviously, there were a lot more creatures than just dinos that were left out of the creation account. To have included every creature in the creation account, such inclusion would have completely lost the spiritual significance of the passage and would be much longer than the Bible itself. The first five books of the Bible, including Genesis, were written by Moses. Since nobody except God was present at the creation, the Genesis account would have to have been given to Moses by God and it seems God was not interested in giving Moses a scientific treatise on the creation of the world. Instead a one page description of the creation of the world and life in it, with God's communication to Moses centered on the relationship between God and man and the rules by which God wanted man to live. As for Genesis which you touched upon, where you gave an example of Christians extending the time within a day during the 6 day creation. Personally, was with the perception as the literal translation of the Hebrew word, yom, which can mean a 12 hr period of time, a 24 hr period of time, or a long, indefinite period of time which in context is clear for the biblical basis for the translation of the word yom. Though, can understand how it raises suspicion. Interesting point with your belief is if dinosaurs had not been wiped out by a asteroid 65 million years ago, that also wiped out a huge % of the land dwelling species and over half of the plant species. Would evolution have predicted that an intelligent bipedal reptile would have filled the niche that is now taken by humans. Lets get back on evolution. Contrary to the claims of some creationists, there is ample evidence from the fossil and archeological evidence for the existence of bipedal primates species dating back to 4.5 million years ago. The dates and ages of the hominid fossils are not widely disputed in the scientific community. We share this view, if these are the fossil records you were describing a few pages back. Though, don't take the position that the examples of Nebraska Man and Piltdown Man call into question the validity of the entire hominid fossil record and the existence of the now extinct bipedal hominids. You commented in response to a post from myself; "I don't understand how you think any scientific evidence supports the magical creation of people". That was the reason for the forwarded question on evolution that went unanswered, to demonstrate that the reality and reliability of the fossil record, along with work in molecular genetics provides support for the biblical scenario for the origin of humans and call into question the evolutionary scenario. To date, much of the general public, have accepted only one scenario for human origins, namely, the evolutionary scenario. Though, not sure what theory you follow, hence why I asked specifics. Bc the current theories of human evolution describe modern humans as emerging gradually from more primitive bipedal primates through Darwinian processes. Australopithecus which appears in the fossil record about 4 point something to 1.5 million years ago, throughout Africa, is the first bipedal primate genus that is thought to have directly lead to modern humans. Though, without the specifics of your theory, it is very broad to challenge as no single scenario for human origins gains total support from all paleoanthropologists. Since you are unsure, but have used the key word of "fossil records," will work with that. The issue here is that the fossil record increasingly does not, honestly viewed, support it. Evolutionary theory claims that there once existed a whole series of successive forms of the various organisms alive today. These supposedly changed by infinitesimal amounts with each generation as they evolved into the present varieties, so the fossil record should show these gradual changes. But it doesn’t. Instead, it shows the sudden emergence of new species out of nowhere, fully complete with all their characteristics and not changing over time. It is almost entirely devoid of forms that can plausibly be identified as intermediates between older and newer ones. This is popularly known as the "missing link" problem, right, and it is massively systematic across different species and time periods. This problem is getting worse, not better, as more fossils are discovered, as the new fossils just resemble those already found and don’t fill in the gaps. Sure, in Darwin's day, it was easy to claim that the fossils were there but had not been discovered. Problem is, we now have hundreds of thousands of well catalogued fossils, from all continents and geologic eras, and we still haven't found these intermediate forms. The quantity, quality, and range of the recovered fossils is impeccable. But the more we dig, the more we keep finding the same forms over and over again, never the intermediates. Various ad hoc explanations for the gaps in the fossil record, like a temporary dearth in the environment of the chemicals needed for organisms to produce the hard body parts that fossilize well, do not stand scrutiny. The response evolution provides at this stage in the argument, is the theory: punctuated equilibrium, which basically says that evolution occurs not gradually but in spurts. This would explain why there are gaps and not continuity in the fossil record. The problem with this theory, which is too complex to go into in detail, is that while it explains away the non-existence of small gradations, it still requires there to be large ones (the individual spurts) and even these aren't in the record. Furthermore, for punctuated equilibrium to have occurred, a very precise set of conditions have to have obtained throughout the entire past period represented in the fossils, and this is unlikely. You know that the fossil record is incomplete KK, but let me guess, while incomplete, you view the fossil record as generally adequate enough to discern patterns such as stasis and absence of gradual evolutionary trends. I accept microevolution as a scientifically reliable theory, which describes the intelligent design with which organisms were endowed by their designer. However, in contrast to the reliability of microevolutionary theory, macroevolution is not supported by the record of nature or current scientific research. You have to admit these major problems. Although molecular biology has been used to hasten research in many fields of biology, it has failed to confirm the evolutionary mechanisms proposed by Darwinian theory. Modern molecular biology tells us that modern humans arose less than one hundred thousand years ago, and most likely, less than fifty thousand years ago, and with a sudden appearance.

Quote Originally Posted by SYSTEM:

If I'm created with evil thoughts I DO! 

So you are blaming someone else for your actions?

If you have money, do you HAVE to gamble it?

If you are married and VERY Attractive to the opposite sex (get offers all the time), do you HAVE to sleep around?

If you are a good liar, do you HAVE to lie?

If you are good at stealing, do you HAVE to steal?

Lets blame others for our actions. Better yet, lets blame God for them...

Believing in God is one thing, FOLLOWING God is a completely different thing.