TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

J.R. said:

---

i'm a member of a PCA church in Dallas, but also attend a PCUSA also. Those 2 churches are on extraordinarily solid foot including both churches in the midst of huge construction additions. I don't find that there is a huge difference in either of the churches practices. I enjoy both equally. Speaking as a recovering Baptist!

---

Personal anecdotes aside, I am not surprised your PCA church in the heart of the Bible Belt is doing well. Many churches do well in the heart of the Bible Belt, especially those who adhere to sound doctrine. Although I don't agree with all of the PCA's beliefs, as between the two groups, it is doing much better than PCUSA due in large part to its resistance to the woke element that has infected PCUSA, which the numbers show is dying.

Where you really see the decline is when you go outside of the Bible Belt.

---

Religion is archaic, with no overarching purpose for continued existence. It can't hold up in the face of knowledge and truth.

---

And yet it does, my atheist friend. Its adherents have been responsible for some of the greatest leaps in technology, the greatest forms of govt., and the greatest acts of kindness known to man.

As of yet, knowledge and truth haven't proven that complex life forms came from inanimate matter. Until it does (it won't), religion will remain with us.

---

The progress you describe is not due to religion. And you'd be wrong about that. The elements you consist of are inanimate matter.

---

Unfortunately, you have insufficient evidence to prove your theory that complex living organisms formed from inanimate matter. It's an absurd position on its face.

But what's funny is you'd believe that b.s. over there being a creator.

---

Your made from inanimate elements (and in turn particles), just like everything else in this universe. There is objective evidence for my belief. You have no objective evidence for a creator.

---

You need to read my poster a little closer. I said, you (and science) haven't proven that complex life forms came from inanimate matter. In other words, you have zero evidence that complex life forms evolved from inanimate matter.

In short, the evidence of your beliefs is no better than mine.

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

J.R. said:

---

i'm a member of a PCA church in Dallas, but also attend a PCUSA also. Those 2 churches are on extraordinarily solid foot including both churches in the midst of huge construction additions. I don't find that there is a huge difference in either of the churches practices. I enjoy both equally. Speaking as a recovering Baptist!

---

Personal anecdotes aside, I am not surprised your PCA church in the heart of the Bible Belt is doing well. Many churches do well in the heart of the Bible Belt, especially those who adhere to sound doctrine. Although I don't agree with all of the PCA's beliefs, as between the two groups, it is doing much better than PCUSA due in large part to its resistance to the woke element that has infected PCUSA, which the numbers show is dying.

Where you really see the decline is when you go outside of the Bible Belt.

---

Religion is archaic, with no overarching purpose for continued existence. It can't hold up in the face of knowledge and truth.

---

And yet it does, my atheist friend. Its adherents have been responsible for some of the greatest leaps in technology, the greatest forms of govt., and the greatest acts of kindness known to man.

As of yet, knowledge and truth haven't proven that complex life forms came from inanimate matter. Until it does (it won't), religion will remain with us.

---

The progress you describe is not due to religion. And you'd be wrong about that. The elements you consist of are inanimate matter.

---

Unfortunately, you have insufficient evidence to prove your theory that complex living organisms formed from inanimate matter. It's an absurd position on its face.

But what's funny is you'd believe that b.s. over there being a creator.

---

Your made from inanimate elements (and in turn particles), just like everything else in this universe. There is objective evidence for my belief. You have no objective evidence for a creator.

---

There is no direct evidence that your belief is complete. You can't prove the absence of God anymore than someone can prove the existence of God. You are working on just as much faith as anyone else.

There is significant indirect evidence that your "inanimate elements" explanation falls woefully short.

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

They're embracing some of the communal ideals of the early Christian church. Back to Christian roots.

---

I doubt anyone has a problem with the communal ideals part... it's the blatantly Marxist parts that are horrible.
Capitalism isn't evil. America isn't evil. America is NOT an empire.... if it were, then ALL of Mexico would now be part of the USA, as well as Cuba, Panama, the Philippines, etc.

This guy is pretending to pursue Jesus, but he is actually brain-washing a bunch of people into becoming secular communists. Communism and the Bible do not work together, which is why every communist nation started out "tolerating" religion and resulted in rejecting and persecuting Christianity.

This guy is just as dangerous as Jim Jones... remember that Jones also did a lot of missionary work, before he served up the Kool Aid.

---

Cuba doesn't reject or persecute Catholicism.

---

Cuba does control Catholicism, and there have been plenty of Catholics who have been arrested or simply disappeared in Cuba after they said things that were forbidden by the Cuban government. Cuba also does this with the small number of other denominations which they allow/regulate.

China also allows "Christianity"... but it also happens to be the only religion in China were the Chinese government has re-written the central text of the religion. The only legal "Bibles" in China are the ones that are published by the CCP... and they are NOT the same as a normal Bible.

The USSR also realized it could not crush religion entirely, so they allowed the Russain Orthodox Church to exist. They made sure that the church preached the values & principles which were approved by the party, and injected communism in every message. I know because I went to Russia right after the wall came down. The people there had never heard the true Gospel message. They were taught that service to the collective was the path to the Kingdom of God.

There is a special place in hell for false teachers... the communists have their own VIP room in that place.

---

Is there really a true Gospel message, and if so, what is the true Gospel message? Is it any of the many differing versions of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, or Q, M, L, or Peter, Thomas, Marcion, Basilides, Truth, Mary, Judas, Philip, the Egyptians, the Jewish Christian Gospels, or any of the infancy Gospels? Who gets to make that determination? Catholics, Gnostics, Orthodox believers, Jews, Mormons, Baptists, Anglicans, Christian scholars, objective scholars etc.?

---

If you really want to discuss this in detail, you should probably start a new thread so we don't hijack this one.
When I said "true Gospel message", I was referring to the agreed upon Gospel message that Jesus is the Son of God who died for the sins of all mankind. All who believe in Him and follow His teaching will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. All who reject Him and his teachings will not enter. Salvation is by the grace of God, through faith in God, and not by works. This was NOT the teaching from the communist approved church, and that was my point.

I somehow suspect that you are not really interested in finding an honest answer to your question, as much as you are interested in trying to "prove" that Christianity and the Bible are false.

So again, if you really want to follow this tangent, I suggest you start a new thread.

---

I don't care to start a new thread or discuss this much further. I'm just pointing out when you drill down into it, there is no agreed upon Gospel message - even what you assert is agreed upon, isn't.

---

Like the man said, your sincerity in pursuit of the Gospel message is suspect. Shooter laid out the essentials

---

How did anyone get to Heaven before Christianity? Works? Don't many Catholics believe you can get there through Purgatory. Not all Christians believe the same. Many believe that belief alone gets you into heaven, following his teaching is not a requirement. There is no 'true' agreed upon Gospel message.

---

Yeah... you really aren't interested in this topic... I can see that clearly.

I just read a few of your older posts...

You don't believe in God, heaven, the Bible... none of it. So your questions are not sincere at all. I would be happy to discuss this topic with someone who genuinely wanted an answer, but that's not you. No answer will ever suffice for you.

So I'll just give you the only answer that you will actually hear... there is no God... it's all a hoax... the Bible isn't real

Now, I believe those statements as much as you actually want an honest answer to your questions... so now we are both engaged in equal levels of sincerity.

Have a nice life.

---

I'm just pointing out the obvious fallacy of all religion. Better to face life grounded in reality.

---

Whether someone chooses to believe in something once they have considered all the evidence, or lack of it, really is their business. Anyone claiming they shouldn't is trying to impose their own value judgements on others, and turning science into an ideology.

You have become that which you claim to be against.

---

Isn't that what Christian evangelism is all about? I'm sure you think that is ok. It never hurts to examine or re-examine your beliefs, IMO.

---

I'm not making a judgment on what is or isn't OK.

Of course Christianity is all about that, It's a religion/ideology...

What I'm referring to is YOU claiming you're not pushing an ideology or value system on others just like a Christian does, when you clearly are.

"In subsequent trips I led with my church in Atlanta, and later the church I served in Minnesota, I befriended pastor Jeronimo Hernandez. He is of Mayan descent and ministers to the Mayan people in the heart of the Yucatn Peninsula. He and his community helped me understand the effects of U.S. policy on Mexico the impact of NAFTA, the power of Big Ag, unfair subsidies to Big Oil, unjust immigration policies, the war on drugs and the proliferation of gun violence. The cumulative effect was devastating, not only near the border but among the millions of poor in the Yucatn.
In my visits to countries throughout Latin America, I witnessed a similar pattern everywhere. And no wonder the U.S. has intentionally destabilized or threatened to destabilize countless countries to exploit resources. In other words, "white makes might makes right." The only supremacy that the U.S. has consistently demonstrated is white supremacy. The Western ideologies of individualism, materialism, abstraction, extraction, capitalism and racism collectively continue to have a hegemonic grip on much of the Western hemisphere. The U.S. government and its corporate masters have successfully bribed or intimidated countless state leaders, all under the banner of advancing "democracy." When that fails, the U.S. government imposes crippling sanctions to coerce nations into submission, Haiti being an early example and Cuba an ongoing one.

At our multicultural Church of All Nations, a Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) congregation in Minneapolis, we explicitly reject the demonic claims of American exceptionalism, white supremacy and Christian nationalism. Our members learn the true history of the U.S., a history of violence. We learn that the U.S. modeled itself after the Roman Empire, which is why it continues to crucify the innocent all over the world. The American Empire too will one day be thrown into the sea."

What are your concerns from this excerpt?

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

J.R. said:

---

i'm a member of a PCA church in Dallas, but also attend a PCUSA also. Those 2 churches are on extraordinarily solid foot including both churches in the midst of huge construction additions. I don't find that there is a huge difference in either of the churches practices. I enjoy both equally. Speaking as a recovering Baptist!

---

Personal anecdotes aside, I am not surprised your PCA church in the heart of the Bible Belt is doing well. Many churches do well in the heart of the Bible Belt, especially those who adhere to sound doctrine. Although I don't agree with all of the PCA's beliefs, as between the two groups, it is doing much better than PCUSA due in large part to its resistance to the woke element that has infected PCUSA, which the numbers show is dying.

Where you really see the decline is when you go outside of the Bible Belt.

---

Religion is archaic, with no overarching purpose for continued existence. It can't hold up in the face of knowledge and truth.

---

And yet it does, my atheist friend. Its adherents have been responsible for some of the greatest leaps in technology, the greatest forms of govt., and the greatest acts of kindness known to man.

As of yet, knowledge and truth haven't proven that complex life forms came from inanimate matter. Until it does (it won't), religion will remain with us.

---

The progress you describe is not due to religion. And you'd be wrong about that. The elements you consist of are inanimate matter.

---

Unfortunately, you have insufficient evidence to prove your theory that complex living organisms formed from inanimate matter. It's an absurd position on its face.

But what's funny is you'd believe that b.s. over there being a creator.

---

Your made from inanimate elements (and in turn particles), just like everything else in this universe. There is objective evidence for my belief. You have no objective evidence for a creator.

---

You need to read my poster a little closer. I said, you (and science) haven't proven that complex life forms came from inanimate matter. In other words, you have zero evidence that complex life forms evolved from inanimate matter.

In short, the evidence of your beliefs is no better than mine.

---

Not sure about your definition of inanimate matter. But, the fact that all life is made of baryonic matter (if that is your inanimate matter definition), along with what we know and have observed about evolution, I'd say skews the probability. And yes, there is evidence that complex life forms come from less complex. The fossil record, and the genetic record is replete with evidence. The 'zero' evidence only comes into play when you introduce a creator.

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

J.R. said:

---

i'm a member of a PCA church in Dallas, but also attend a PCUSA also. Those 2 churches are on extraordinarily solid foot including both churches in the midst of huge construction additions. I don't find that there is a huge difference in either of the churches practices. I enjoy both equally. Speaking as a recovering Baptist!

---

Personal anecdotes aside, I am not surprised your PCA church in the heart of the Bible Belt is doing well. Many churches do well in the heart of the Bible Belt, especially those who adhere to sound doctrine. Although I don't agree with all of the PCA's beliefs, as between the two groups, it is doing much better than PCUSA due in large part to its resistance to the woke element that has infected PCUSA, which the numbers show is dying.

Where you really see the decline is when you go outside of the Bible Belt.

---

Religion is archaic, with no overarching purpose for continued existence. It can't hold up in the face of knowledge and truth.

---

And yet it does, my atheist friend. Its adherents have been responsible for some of the greatest leaps in technology, the greatest forms of govt., and the greatest acts of kindness known to man.

As of yet, knowledge and truth haven't proven that complex life forms came from inanimate matter. Until it does (it won't), religion will remain with us.

---

The progress you describe is not due to religion. And you'd be wrong about that. The elements you consist of are inanimate matter.

---

Unfortunately, you have insufficient evidence to prove your theory that complex living organisms formed from inanimate matter. It's an absurd position on its face.

But what's funny is you'd believe that b.s. over there being a creator.

---

Your made from inanimate elements (and in turn particles), just like everything else in this universe. There is objective evidence for my belief. You have no objective evidence for a creator.

---

You need to read my poster a little closer. I said, you (and science) haven't proven that complex life forms came from inanimate matter. In other words, you have zero evidence that complex life forms evolved from inanimate matter.

In short, the evidence of your beliefs is no better than mine.

---

Not sure about your definition of inanimate matter. But, the fact that all life is made of baryonic matter (if that is your inanimate matter definition), along with what we know and have observed about evolution, I'd say skews the probability. And yes, there is evidence that complex life forms come from less complex. The fossil record, and the genetic record is replete with evidence. The 'zero' evidence only comes into play when you introduce a creator.

---

You keep getting hung up on the fact we are composed of matter, instead of paying attention to the operative words: formed. I am not sure if it's intentional, or you are still misunderstanding me.

Once again, there is zero evidence complex organisms evolved from inanimate matter. But if you think I am wrong, feel free to post your evidence.

" You have no objective evidence for a creator."

Aside from the Big Bang?

Oldbear83 said:

---

" You have no objective evidence for a creator."

Aside from the Big Bang?

---

The Big Bang is evidence of the beginning of the Universe. So far, there is no objective evidence, or any evidence linking the Big Bang to a creator.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" You have no objective evidence for a creator."

Aside from the Big Bang?

---

The Big Bang is evidence of the beginning of the Universe. So far, there is no objective evidence, or any evidence linking the Big Bang to a creator.

---

What caused the Big Bang?

Religion has a better answer than Science so far on that one.

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

J.R. said:

---

i'm a member of a PCA church in Dallas, but also attend a PCUSA also. Those 2 churches are on extraordinarily solid foot including both churches in the midst of huge construction additions. I don't find that there is a huge difference in either of the churches practices. I enjoy both equally. Speaking as a recovering Baptist!

---

Personal anecdotes aside, I am not surprised your PCA church in the heart of the Bible Belt is doing well. Many churches do well in the heart of the Bible Belt, especially those who adhere to sound doctrine. Although I don't agree with all of the PCA's beliefs, as between the two groups, it is doing much better than PCUSA due in large part to its resistance to the woke element that has infected PCUSA, which the numbers show is dying.

Where you really see the decline is when you go outside of the Bible Belt.

---

Religion is archaic, with no overarching purpose for continued existence. It can't hold up in the face of knowledge and truth.

---

And yet it does, my atheist friend. Its adherents have been responsible for some of the greatest leaps in technology, the greatest forms of govt., and the greatest acts of kindness known to man.

As of yet, knowledge and truth haven't proven that complex life forms came from inanimate matter. Until it does (it won't), religion will remain with us.

---

The progress you describe is not due to religion. And you'd be wrong about that. The elements you consist of are inanimate matter.

---

Unfortunately, you have insufficient evidence to prove your theory that complex living organisms formed from inanimate matter. It's an absurd position on its face.

But what's funny is you'd believe that b.s. over there being a creator.

---

Your made from inanimate elements (and in turn particles), just like everything else in this universe. There is objective evidence for my belief. You have no objective evidence for a creator.

---

You need to read my poster a little closer. I said, you (and science) haven't proven that complex life forms came from inanimate matter. In other words, you have zero evidence that complex life forms evolved from inanimate matter.

In short, the evidence of your beliefs is no better than mine.

---

Not sure about your definition of inanimate matter. But, the fact that all life is made of baryonic matter (if that is your inanimate matter definition), along with what we know and have observed about evolution, I'd say skews the probability. And yes, there is evidence that complex life forms come from less complex. The fossil record, and the genetic record is replete with evidence. The 'zero' evidence only comes into play when you introduce a creator.

---

You keep getting hung up on the fact we are composed of matter, instead of paying attention to the operative words: formed. I am not sure if it's intentional, or you are still misunderstanding me.

Once again, there is zero evidence complex organisms evolved from inanimate matter. But if you think I am wrong, feel free to post your evidence.

---

Once again, the fossil record and the genetic record demonstrates evolution from simpler to more complex forms of life. Evidence of what has occurred with life through time. We already know the organic compounds necessary for abiogenesis occur naturally. Eventually, we'll know the complete process. With research, the details are revealed bit by bit. The fact that we are here, made of inanimate matter (C, H, O, P, Ca, N, Na, Cl, Fe) that has organized itself into animate life is evidence in and of itself.

God is not a matter of physics but of love, justice and faith.

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

J.R. said:

---

i'm a member of a PCA church in Dallas, but also attend a PCUSA also. Those 2 churches are on extraordinarily solid foot including both churches in the midst of huge construction additions. I don't find that there is a huge difference in either of the churches practices. I enjoy both equally. Speaking as a recovering Baptist!

---

Personal anecdotes aside, I am not surprised your PCA church in the heart of the Bible Belt is doing well. Many churches do well in the heart of the Bible Belt, especially those who adhere to sound doctrine. Although I don't agree with all of the PCA's beliefs, as between the two groups, it is doing much better than PCUSA due in large part to its resistance to the woke element that has infected PCUSA, which the numbers show is dying.

Where you really see the decline is when you go outside of the Bible Belt.

---

Religion is archaic, with no overarching purpose for continued existence. It can't hold up in the face of knowledge and truth.

---

And yet it does, my atheist friend. Its adherents have been responsible for some of the greatest leaps in technology, the greatest forms of govt., and the greatest acts of kindness known to man.

As of yet, knowledge and truth haven't proven that complex life forms came from inanimate matter. Until it does (it won't), religion will remain with us.

---

The progress you describe is not due to religion. And you'd be wrong about that. The elements you consist of are inanimate matter.

---

Unfortunately, you have insufficient evidence to prove your theory that complex living organisms formed from inanimate matter. It's an absurd position on its face.

But what's funny is you'd believe that b.s. over there being a creator.

---

Your made from inanimate elements (and in turn particles), just like everything else in this universe. There is objective evidence for my belief. You have no objective evidence for a creator.

---

You need to read my poster a little closer. I said, you (and science) haven't proven that complex life forms came from inanimate matter. In other words, you have zero evidence that complex life forms evolved from inanimate matter.

In short, the evidence of your beliefs is no better than mine.

---

Not sure about your definition of inanimate matter. But, the fact that all life is made of baryonic matter (if that is your inanimate matter definition), along with what we know and have observed about evolution, I'd say skews the probability. And yes, there is evidence that complex life forms come from less complex. The fossil record, and the genetic record is replete with evidence. The 'zero' evidence only comes into play when you introduce a creator.

---

You keep getting hung up on the fact we are composed of matter, instead of paying attention to the operative words: formed. I am not sure if it's intentional, or you are still misunderstanding me.

Once again, there is zero evidence complex organisms evolved from inanimate matter. But if you think I am wrong, feel free to post your evidence.

---

Once again, the fossil record and the genetic record demonstrates evolution from simpler to more complex forms of life. Evidence of what has occurred with life through time. We already know the organic compounds necessary for abiogenesis occur naturally. Eventually, we'll know the complete process. With research, the details are revealed bit by bit. The fact that we are here, made of inanimate matter (C, H, O, P, Ca, N, Na, Cl, Fe) that has organized itself into animate life is evidence in and of itself.

---

Once again you're choosing to ignore my statement because it doesn't support your absurd position. As stated for the 5th time, you and I both know there's no evidence whatsoever of complex organisms evolving from inanimate matter. That's a fact.

Now you may think one days science will prove as such, but your theory is no less far fetched at this time than the idea a creator exists. Sorry

TS has more faith than anyone on this board.

Robert Wilson said:

---

TS has more faith than anyone on this board.

---

Yup. I've always said it takes a huge leap of faith to believe that inanimate matter evolved into complex organisms, or that something came from nothing.

The irony here is he thinks he's the one who is irreligious.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" You have no objective evidence for a creator."

Aside from the Big Bang?

---

The Big Bang is evidence of the beginning of the Universe. So far, there is no objective evidence, or any evidence linking the Big Bang to a creator.

---

What caused the Big Bang?

Religion has a better answer than Science so far on that one.

---

Quantum physics gives a plausible explanation, which is far better than an imaginary primitive being is causal. Which religion is correct? Who caused your imaginary being? Why would such a being hide themselves in secrecy, if they want the world to recognize and give them credit? Religion has no answer other than making up an explanation for the furtherance of religious objectives. Science follows the evidence of reality, where ever it leads. Evidence points to a natural cause. There is no supernatural evidence of anything.

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

J.R. said:

---

i'm a member of a PCA church in Dallas, but also attend a PCUSA also. Those 2 churches are on extraordinarily solid foot including both churches in the midst of huge construction additions. I don't find that there is a huge difference in either of the churches practices. I enjoy both equally. Speaking as a recovering Baptist!

---

Personal anecdotes aside, I am not surprised your PCA church in the heart of the Bible Belt is doing well. Many churches do well in the heart of the Bible Belt, especially those who adhere to sound doctrine. Although I don't agree with all of the PCA's beliefs, as between the two groups, it is doing much better than PCUSA due in large part to its resistance to the woke element that has infected PCUSA, which the numbers show is dying.

Where you really see the decline is when you go outside of the Bible Belt.

---

Religion is archaic, with no overarching purpose for continued existence. It can't hold up in the face of knowledge and truth.

---

And yet it does, my atheist friend. Its adherents have been responsible for some of the greatest leaps in technology, the greatest forms of govt., and the greatest acts of kindness known to man.

As of yet, knowledge and truth haven't proven that complex life forms came from inanimate matter. Until it does (it won't), religion will remain with us.

---

The progress you describe is not due to religion. And you'd be wrong about that. The elements you consist of are inanimate matter.

---

Unfortunately, you have insufficient evidence to prove your theory that complex living organisms formed from inanimate matter. It's an absurd position on its face.

But what's funny is you'd believe that b.s. over there being a creator.

---

Your made from inanimate elements (and in turn particles), just like everything else in this universe. There is objective evidence for my belief. You have no objective evidence for a creator.

---

You need to read my poster a little closer. I said, you (and science) haven't proven that complex life forms came from inanimate matter. In other words, you have zero evidence that complex life forms evolved from inanimate matter.

In short, the evidence of your beliefs is no better than mine.

---

Not sure about your definition of inanimate matter. But, the fact that all life is made of baryonic matter (if that is your inanimate matter definition), along with what we know and have observed about evolution, I'd say skews the probability. And yes, there is evidence that complex life forms come from less complex. The fossil record, and the genetic record is replete with evidence. The 'zero' evidence only comes into play when you introduce a creator.

---

You keep getting hung up on the fact we are composed of matter, instead of paying attention to the operative words: formed. I am not sure if it's intentional, or you are still misunderstanding me.

Once again, there is zero evidence complex organisms evolved from inanimate matter. But if you think I am wrong, feel free to post your evidence.

---

Once again, the fossil record and the genetic record demonstrates evolution from simpler to more complex forms of life. Evidence of what has occurred with life through time. We already know the organic compounds necessary for abiogenesis occur naturally. Eventually, we'll know the complete process. With research, the details are revealed bit by bit. The fact that we are here, made of inanimate matter (C, H, O, P, Ca, N, Na, Cl, Fe) that has organized itself into animate life is evidence in and of itself.

---

Once again you're choosing to ignore my statement because it doesn't support your absurd position. As stated for the 5th time, you and I both know there's no evidence whatsoever of complex organisms evolving from inanimate matter. That's a fact.

Now you may think one days science will prove as such, but your theory is no less far fetched at this time than the idea a creator exists. Sorry

---

The fact that you're walking around made up of inanimate matter is prima facie evidence. What's absurd, evidence based evolutionary biology and paleontology, or insistence in a primitive imaginary belief? Think about it. Truth is inconvenient to what you've been taught to believe.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" You have no objective evidence for a creator."

Aside from the Big Bang?

---

The Big Bang is evidence of the beginning of the Universe. So far, there is no objective evidence, or any evidence linking the Big Bang to a creator.

---

What caused the Big Bang?

Religion has a better answer than Science so far on that one.

---

Quantum physics gives a plausible explanation, which is far better than an imaginary primitive being is causal. Which religion is correct? Who caused your imaginary being? Why would such a being hide themselves in secrecy, if they want the world to recognize and give them credit? Religion has no answer other than making up an explanation for the furtherance of religious objectives. Science follows the evidence of reality, where ever it leads. Evidence points to a natural cause. There is no supernatural evidence of anything.

---

No one understands Quantum Physics, least of all a blowhard on an internet forum. I will stick with the historical and personal evidence of the Living God. You can keep your still-working-on-it theory.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" You have no objective evidence for a creator."

Aside from the Big Bang?

---

The Big Bang is evidence of the beginning of the Universe. So far, there is no objective evidence, or any evidence linking the Big Bang to a creator.

---

What caused the Big Bang?

Religion has a better answer than Science so far on that one.

---

Quantum physics gives a plausible explanation, which is far better than an imaginary primitive being is causal. Which religion is correct? Who caused your imaginary being? Why would such a being hide themselves in secrecy, if they want the world to recognize and give them credit? Religion has no answer other than making up an explanation for the furtherance of religious objectives. Science follows the evidence of reality, where ever it leads. Evidence points to a natural cause. There is no supernatural evidence of anything.

---

No one understands Quantum Physics, least of all a blowhard on an internet forum. I will stick with the historical and personal evidence of the Living God. You can keep your still-working-on-it theory.

---

Quote:

---

I will stick with the historical and personal evidence of the Living God.

---

= I will stick with the stories and imaginations of primitive Iron Age people, who didn't even know the earth orbits the sun, because that is more palatable when confronted with my own mortality.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" You have no objective evidence for a creator."

Aside from the Big Bang?

---

The Big Bang is evidence of the beginning of the Universe. So far, there is no objective evidence, or any evidence linking the Big Bang to a creator.

---

What caused the Big Bang?

Religion has a better answer than Science so far on that one.

---

Quantum physics gives a plausible explanation, which is far better than an imaginary primitive being is causal. Which religion is correct? Who caused your imaginary being? Why would such a being hide themselves in secrecy, if they want the world to recognize and give them credit? Religion has no answer other than making up an explanation for the furtherance of religious objectives. Science follows the evidence of reality, where ever it leads. Evidence points to a natural cause. There is no supernatural evidence of anything.

---

No one understands Quantum Physics, least of all a blowhard on an internet forum. I will stick with the historical and personal evidence of the Living God. You can keep your still-working-on-it theory.

---

Quote:

---

I will stick with the historical and personal evidence of the Living God.

---

= I will stick with the stories and imaginations of primitive Iron Age people, who didn't even know the earth orbits the sun, because that is more palatable when confronted with my own mortality.

---

You know nothing directly about the Iron Age, but depend on what someone else told you. The funny thing is that we both depend on external sources, but mine has always been clear that we depend on faith, while you pretend to 'know' something which you cannot actually know.

We believe there was a Big Bang, but no one has been able to explain why it happened, what caused it to happen, or many of the questions even Physics has been facing since they started to look. But you cling to the assumption that your theory is true just because you like it, which is no better than the debunked theories like Phrenology, Eugenics, or all the crap thrown out by Al Gore in his scam to sell carbon credits.

You may ignore the value of Faith in human history, and ignore the impact of people like Joan of Arc, Martin Luther King Jr., George Washington, Ghandi, or John Paul II, yet their effect is true and important. Frankly, it is a dismal life which ignores the bright lights of people who lived in faith.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" You have no objective evidence for a creator."

Aside from the Big Bang?

---

The Big Bang is evidence of the beginning of the Universe. So far, there is no objective evidence, or any evidence linking the Big Bang to a creator.

---

What caused the Big Bang?

Religion has a better answer than Science so far on that one.

---

Quantum physics gives a plausible explanation, which is far better than an imaginary primitive being is causal. Which religion is correct? Who caused your imaginary being? Why would such a being hide themselves in secrecy, if they want the world to recognize and give them credit? Religion has no answer other than making up an explanation for the furtherance of religious objectives. Science follows the evidence of reality, where ever it leads. Evidence points to a natural cause. There is no supernatural evidence of anything.

---

No one understands Quantum Physics, least of all a blowhard on an internet forum. I will stick with the historical and personal evidence of the Living God. You can keep your still-working-on-it theory.

---

Quote:

---

I will stick with the historical and personal evidence of the Living God.

---

= I will stick with the stories and imaginations of primitive Iron Age people, who didn't even know the earth orbits the sun, because that is more palatable when confronted with my own mortality.

---

You know nothing directly about the Iron Age, but depend on what someone else told you. The funny thing is that we both depend on external sources, but mine has always been clear that we depend on faith, while you pretend to 'know' something which you cannot actually know.

We believe there was a Big Bang, but no one has been able to explain why it happened, what caused it to happen, or many of the questions even Physics has been facing since they started to look. But you cling to the assumption that your theory is true just because you like it, which is no better than the debunked theories like Phrenology, Eugenics, or all the crap thrown out by Al Gore in his scam to sell carbon credits.

You may ignore the value of Faith in human history, and ignore the impact of people like Joan of Arc, Martin Luther King Jr., George Washington, Ghandi, or John Paul II, yet their effect is true and important. Frankly, it is a dismal life which ignores the bright lights of people who lived in faith.

---

Extrapolation, deflection, misdirection, false assumptions and rabbit trails, none of which reflects what I believe, or is even germane to the discussion. We know the Big Bang occurred because we have the evidence from, among other things, the cosmic microwave background, and from the recent discovery and study of gravitational waves. Quantum physics give us a plausible explanation of how it could happen without the need for a creator. 'Why' presupposes an intent, when there is only evidence for how it happened. The more we learn about particle physics, the closer we'll get to understanding. Physics gives us far more plausible answers than faith in primitive tales. Probability is not in your favor.

So many words, yet no effective response.

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

J.R. said:

---

i'm a member of a PCA church in Dallas, but also attend a PCUSA also. Those 2 churches are on extraordinarily solid foot including both churches in the midst of huge construction additions. I don't find that there is a huge difference in either of the churches practices. I enjoy both equally. Speaking as a recovering Baptist!

---

Personal anecdotes aside, I am not surprised your PCA church in the heart of the Bible Belt is doing well. Many churches do well in the heart of the Bible Belt, especially those who adhere to sound doctrine. Although I don't agree with all of the PCA's beliefs, as between the two groups, it is doing much better than PCUSA due in large part to its resistance to the woke element that has infected PCUSA, which the numbers show is dying.

Where you really see the decline is when you go outside of the Bible Belt.

---

Religion is archaic, with no overarching purpose for continued existence. It can't hold up in the face of knowledge and truth.

---

And yet it does, my atheist friend. Its adherents have been responsible for some of the greatest leaps in technology, the greatest forms of govt., and the greatest acts of kindness known to man.

As of yet, knowledge and truth haven't proven that complex life forms came from inanimate matter. Until it does (it won't), religion will remain with us.

---

The progress you describe is not due to religion. And you'd be wrong about that. The elements you consist of are inanimate matter.

---

Unfortunately, you have insufficient evidence to prove your theory that complex living organisms formed from inanimate matter. It's an absurd position on its face.

But what's funny is you'd believe that b.s. over there being a creator.

---

Your made from inanimate elements (and in turn particles), just like everything else in this universe. There is objective evidence for my belief. You have no objective evidence for a creator.

---

You need to read my poster a little closer. I said, you (and science) haven't proven that complex life forms came from inanimate matter. In other words, you have zero evidence that complex life forms evolved from inanimate matter.

In short, the evidence of your beliefs is no better than mine.

---

Not sure about your definition of inanimate matter. But, the fact that all life is made of baryonic matter (if that is your inanimate matter definition), along with what we know and have observed about evolution, I'd say skews the probability. And yes, there is evidence that complex life forms come from less complex. The fossil record, and the genetic record is replete with evidence. The 'zero' evidence only comes into play when you introduce a creator.

---

You keep getting hung up on the fact we are composed of matter, instead of paying attention to the operative words: formed. I am not sure if it's intentional, or you are still misunderstanding me.

Once again, there is zero evidence complex organisms evolved from inanimate matter. But if you think I am wrong, feel free to post your evidence.

---

Once again, the fossil record and the genetic record demonstrates evolution from simpler to more complex forms of life. Evidence of what has occurred with life through time. We already know the organic compounds necessary for abiogenesis occur naturally. Eventually, we'll know the complete process. With research, the details are revealed bit by bit. The fact that we are here, made of inanimate matter (C, H, O, P, Ca, N, Na, Cl, Fe) that has organized itself into animate life is evidence in and of itself.

---

Once again you're choosing to ignore my statement because it doesn't support your absurd position. As stated for the 5th time, you and I both know there's no evidence whatsoever of complex organisms evolving from inanimate matter. That's a fact.

Now you may think one days science will prove as such, but your theory is no less far fetched at this time than the idea a creator exists. Sorry

---

The fact that you're walking around made up of inanimate matter is prima facie evidence. What's absurd, evidence based evolutionary biology and paleontology, or insistence in a primitive imaginary belief? Think about it. Truth is inconvenient to what you've been taught to believe.

---

You've asserted a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy, not prima facie evidence . You are making a correlation that you believe appears to suggest causality. However, your conclusion appears to be based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors potentially responsible for the result that might rule out the connection (i.e. a Creator).

So no, the fact we are made of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus does not suggest (much less prove) that complex organisms evolved from inanimate matter.

The real question is, why is TS so deeply invested in attempting to attack and destroy the personal faith of others? He is to atheism what the new Twitter poster is to homosexuality. There's no topic into which each won't absurdly try and shoehorn their favorite obsession.

If you disagree with the inner thoughts/beliefs of others, which don't affect you in any way, and if those people have stated they aren't interested in your breathless criticism, particularly on topics unrelated to Christianity, the civil thing to do is agree to disagree.

Canon said:

---

The real question is, why is TS so deeply invested in attempting to attack and destroy the personal faith of others?

---

After years ( and literally dozens ) of TS's attacks on religion ....have come to the conclusion its all some kind of self help.

Canon said:

---

The real question is, why is TS so deeply invested in attempting to attack and destroy the personal faith of others? He is to atheism what the new Twitter poster is to homosexuality. There's no topic into which each won't absurdly try and shoehorn their favorite obsession.

If you disagree with the inner thoughts/beliefs of others, which don't affect you in any way, and if those people have stated they aren't interested in your breathless criticism, particularly on topics unrelated to Christianity, the civil thing to do is agree to disagree.

---

It's because he isn't interested in the topic enough to start an independent thread on the topic... can't you tell? LOL

After his 4th or 5th comment on the topic, i quickly realized he is full of crap.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" You have no objective evidence for a creator."

Aside from the Big Bang?

---

The Big Bang is evidence of the beginning of the Universe. So far, there is no objective evidence, or any evidence linking the Big Bang to a creator.

---

What caused the Big Bang?

Religion has a better answer than Science so far on that one.

---

Quantum physics gives a plausible explanation, which is far better than an imaginary primitive being is causal. Which religion is correct? Who caused your imaginary being? Why would such a being hide themselves in secrecy, if they want the world to recognize and give them credit? Religion has no answer other than making up an explanation for the furtherance of religious objectives. Science follows the evidence of reality, where ever it leads. Evidence points to a natural cause. There is no supernatural evidence of anything.

---

No one understands Quantum Physics, least of all a blowhard on an internet forum. I will stick with the historical and personal evidence of the Living God. You can keep your still-working-on-it theory.

---

Quote:

---

I will stick with the historical and personal evidence of the Living God.

---

= I will stick with the stories and imaginations of primitive Iron Age people, who didn't even know the earth orbits the sun, because that is more palatable when confronted with my own mortality.

---

You know nothing directly about the Iron Age, but depend on what someone else told you. The funny thing is that we both depend on external sources, but mine has always been clear that we depend on faith, while you pretend to 'know' something which you cannot actually know.

We believe there was a Big Bang, but no one has been able to explain why it happened, what caused it to happen, or many of the questions even Physics has been facing since they started to look. But you cling to the assumption that your theory is true just because you like it, which is no better than the debunked theories like Phrenology, Eugenics, or all the crap thrown out by Al Gore in his scam to sell carbon credits.

You may ignore the value of Faith in human history, and ignore the impact of people like Joan of Arc, Martin Luther King Jr., George Washington, Ghandi, or John Paul II, yet their effect is true and important. Frankly, it is a dismal life which ignores the bright lights of people who lived in faith.

---

Extrapolation, deflection, misdirection, false assumptions and rabbit trails, none of which reflects what I believe, or is even germane to the discussion. We know the Big Bang occurred because we have the evidence from, among other things, the cosmic microwave background, and from the recent discovery and study of gravitational waves. Quantum physics give us a plausible explanation of how it could happen without the need for a creator. 'Why' presupposes an intent, when there is only evidence for how it happened. The more we learn about particle physics, the closer we'll get to understanding. Physics gives us far more plausible answers than faith in primitive tales. Probability is not in your favor.

---

you are not attacking religion. You're doing a great job with science and faith. We agree on the science of reality but I lay claim to a God of love. There is a difference. I have Biblical faith which is the bedrock of the scriptures. The scriptures were never intended as the science of the physical world nor were they intended to be history (although the Bible contains history). Rather they are the good news of faith God is with us.

Waco1947 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" You have no objective evidence for a creator."

Aside from the Big Bang?

---

The Big Bang is evidence of the beginning of the Universe. So far, there is no objective evidence, or any evidence linking the Big Bang to a creator.

---

What caused the Big Bang?

Religion has a better answer than Science so far on that one.

---

Quantum physics gives a plausible explanation, which is far better than an imaginary primitive being is causal. Which religion is correct? Who caused your imaginary being? Why would such a being hide themselves in secrecy, if they want the world to recognize and give them credit? Religion has no answer other than making up an explanation for the furtherance of religious objectives. Science follows the evidence of reality, where ever it leads. Evidence points to a natural cause. There is no supernatural evidence of anything.

---

No one understands Quantum Physics, least of all a blowhard on an internet forum. I will stick with the historical and personal evidence of the Living God. You can keep your still-working-on-it theory.

---

Quote:

---

I will stick with the historical and personal evidence of the Living God.

---

= I will stick with the stories and imaginations of primitive Iron Age people, who didn't even know the earth orbits the sun, because that is more palatable when confronted with my own mortality.

---

You know nothing directly about the Iron Age, but depend on what someone else told you. The funny thing is that we both depend on external sources, but mine has always been clear that we depend on faith, while you pretend to 'know' something which you cannot actually know.

We believe there was a Big Bang, but no one has been able to explain why it happened, what caused it to happen, or many of the questions even Physics has been facing since they started to look. But you cling to the assumption that your theory is true just because you like it, which is no better than the debunked theories like Phrenology, Eugenics, or all the crap thrown out by Al Gore in his scam to sell carbon credits.

You may ignore the value of Faith in human history, and ignore the impact of people like Joan of Arc, Martin Luther King Jr., George Washington, Ghandi, or John Paul II, yet their effect is true and important. Frankly, it is a dismal life which ignores the bright lights of people who lived in faith.

---

Extrapolation, deflection, misdirection, false assumptions and rabbit trails, none of which reflects what I believe, or is even germane to the discussion. We know the Big Bang occurred because we have the evidence from, among other things, the cosmic microwave background, and from the recent discovery and study of gravitational waves. Quantum physics give us a plausible explanation of how it could happen without the need for a creator. 'Why' presupposes an intent, when there is only evidence for how it happened. The more we learn about particle physics, the closer we'll get to understanding. Physics gives us far more plausible answers than faith in primitive tales. Probability is not in your favor.

---

you are not attacking religion. You're doing a great job with science and faith.

---

LOL

Gotta luv the internet .




TS has made it abundantly clear that in his view God does not exist .

That God is not with us.

Waco1947 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" You have no objective evidence for a creator."

Aside from the Big Bang?

---

The Big Bang is evidence of the beginning of the Universe. So far, there is no objective evidence, or any evidence linking the Big Bang to a creator.

---

What caused the Big Bang?

Religion has a better answer than Science so far on that one.

---

Quantum physics gives a plausible explanation, which is far better than an imaginary primitive being is causal. Which religion is correct? Who caused your imaginary being? Why would such a being hide themselves in secrecy, if they want the world to recognize and give them credit? Religion has no answer other than making up an explanation for the furtherance of religious objectives. Science follows the evidence of reality, where ever it leads. Evidence points to a natural cause. There is no supernatural evidence of anything.

---

No one understands Quantum Physics, least of all a blowhard on an internet forum. I will stick with the historical and personal evidence of the Living God. You can keep your still-working-on-it theory.

---

Quote:

---

I will stick with the historical and personal evidence of the Living God.

---

= I will stick with the stories and imaginations of primitive Iron Age people, who didn't even know the earth orbits the sun, because that is more palatable when confronted with my own mortality.

---

You know nothing directly about the Iron Age, but depend on what someone else told you. The funny thing is that we both depend on external sources, but mine has always been clear that we depend on faith, while you pretend to 'know' something which you cannot actually know.

We believe there was a Big Bang, but no one has been able to explain why it happened, what caused it to happen, or many of the questions even Physics has been facing since they started to look. But you cling to the assumption that your theory is true just because you like it, which is no better than the debunked theories like Phrenology, Eugenics, or all the crap thrown out by Al Gore in his scam to sell carbon credits.

You may ignore the value of Faith in human history, and ignore the impact of people like Joan of Arc, Martin Luther King Jr., George Washington, Ghandi, or John Paul II, yet their effect is true and important. Frankly, it is a dismal life which ignores the bright lights of people who lived in faith.

---

Extrapolation, deflection, misdirection, false assumptions and rabbit trails, none of which reflects what I believe, or is even germane to the discussion. We know the Big Bang occurred because we have the evidence from, among other things, the cosmic microwave background, and from the recent discovery and study of gravitational waves. Quantum physics give us a plausible explanation of how it could happen without the need for a creator. 'Why' presupposes an intent, when there is only evidence for how it happened. The more we learn about particle physics, the closer we'll get to understanding. Physics gives us far more plausible answers than faith in primitive tales. Probability is not in your favor.

---

you are not attacking religion. You're doing a great job with science and faith. We agree on the science of reality but I lay claim to a God of love. There is a difference. I have Biblical faith which is the bedrock of the scriptures. The scriptures were never intended as the science of the physical world nor were they intended to be history (although the Bible contains history). Rather they are the good news of faith God is with us.

---

Nothing like watching an atheist and heretic debate religion... this should be good!

Waco1947 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" You have no objective evidence for a creator."

Aside from the Big Bang?

---

The Big Bang is evidence of the beginning of the Universe. So far, there is no objective evidence, or any evidence linking the Big Bang to a creator.

---

What caused the Big Bang?

Religion has a better answer than Science so far on that one.

---

Quantum physics gives a plausible explanation, which is far better than an imaginary primitive being is causal. Which religion is correct? Who caused your imaginary being? Why would such a being hide themselves in secrecy, if they want the world to recognize and give them credit? Religion has no answer other than making up an explanation for the furtherance of religious objectives. Science follows the evidence of reality, where ever it leads. Evidence points to a natural cause. There is no supernatural evidence of anything.

---

No one understands Quantum Physics, least of all a blowhard on an internet forum. I will stick with the historical and personal evidence of the Living God. You can keep your still-working-on-it theory.

---

Quote:

---

I will stick with the historical and personal evidence of the Living God.

---

= I will stick with the stories and imaginations of primitive Iron Age people, who didn't even know the earth orbits the sun, because that is more palatable when confronted with my own mortality.

---

You know nothing directly about the Iron Age, but depend on what someone else told you. The funny thing is that we both depend on external sources, but mine has always been clear that we depend on faith, while you pretend to 'know' something which you cannot actually know.

We believe there was a Big Bang, but no one has been able to explain why it happened, what caused it to happen, or many of the questions even Physics has been facing since they started to look. But you cling to the assumption that your theory is true just because you like it, which is no better than the debunked theories like Phrenology, Eugenics, or all the crap thrown out by Al Gore in his scam to sell carbon credits.

You may ignore the value of Faith in human history, and ignore the impact of people like Joan of Arc, Martin Luther King Jr., George Washington, Ghandi, or John Paul II, yet their effect is true and important. Frankly, it is a dismal life which ignores the bright lights of people who lived in faith.

---

Extrapolation, deflection, misdirection, false assumptions and rabbit trails, none of which reflects what I believe, or is even germane to the discussion. We know the Big Bang occurred because we have the evidence from, among other things, the cosmic microwave background, and from the recent discovery and study of gravitational waves. Quantum physics give us a plausible explanation of how it could happen without the need for a creator. 'Why' presupposes an intent, when there is only evidence for how it happened. The more we learn about particle physics, the closer we'll get to understanding. Physics gives us far more plausible answers than faith in primitive tales. Probability is not in your favor.

---

you are not attacking religion. You're doing a great job with science and faith. We agree on the science of reality but I lay claim to a God of love. There is a difference. I have Biblical faith which is the bedrock of the scriptures. The scriptures were never intended as the science of the physical world nor were they intended to be history (although the Bible contains history). Rather they are the good news of faith God is with us.

---

Excellent post, Waco.

Canon said:

---

The real question is, why is TS so deeply invested in attempting to attack and destroy the personal faith of others? He is to atheism what the new Twitter poster is to homosexuality. There's no topic into which each won't absurdly try and shoehorn their favorite obsession.

If you disagree with the inner thoughts/beliefs of others, which don't affect you in any way, and if those people have stated they aren't interested in your breathless criticism, particularly on topics unrelated to Christianity, the civil thing to do is agree to disagree.

---

I generally respond when someone posts an absurd assertion about religion. This particular thread is about a group of Presbyterian Christians and what they believe/teach. Surely, you're not saying there is no room for expressing differing opinions on this thread. Isn't this discussion civil disagreement, or are you only wanting civil agreement? Agreeing to disagree yields silence.

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

J.R. said:

---

i'm a member of a PCA church in Dallas, but also attend a PCUSA also. Those 2 churches are on extraordinarily solid foot including both churches in the midst of huge construction additions. I don't find that there is a huge difference in either of the churches practices. I enjoy both equally. Speaking as a recovering Baptist!

---

Personal anecdotes aside, I am not surprised your PCA church in the heart of the Bible Belt is doing well. Many churches do well in the heart of the Bible Belt, especially those who adhere to sound doctrine. Although I don't agree with all of the PCA's beliefs, as between the two groups, it is doing much better than PCUSA due in large part to its resistance to the woke element that has infected PCUSA, which the numbers show is dying.

Where you really see the decline is when you go outside of the Bible Belt.

---

Religion is archaic, with no overarching purpose for continued existence. It can't hold up in the face of knowledge and truth.

---

And yet it does, my atheist friend. Its adherents have been responsible for some of the greatest leaps in technology, the greatest forms of govt., and the greatest acts of kindness known to man.

As of yet, knowledge and truth haven't proven that complex life forms came from inanimate matter. Until it does (it won't), religion will remain with us.

---

The progress you describe is not due to religion. And you'd be wrong about that. The elements you consist of are inanimate matter.

---

Unfortunately, you have insufficient evidence to prove your theory that complex living organisms formed from inanimate matter. It's an absurd position on its face.

But what's funny is you'd believe that b.s. over there being a creator.

---

Your made from inanimate elements (and in turn particles), just like everything else in this universe. There is objective evidence for my belief. You have no objective evidence for a creator.

---

You need to read my poster a little closer. I said, you (and science) haven't proven that complex life forms came from inanimate matter. In other words, you have zero evidence that complex life forms evolved from inanimate matter.

In short, the evidence of your beliefs is no better than mine.

---

Not sure about your definition of inanimate matter. But, the fact that all life is made of baryonic matter (if that is your inanimate matter definition), along with what we know and have observed about evolution, I'd say skews the probability. And yes, there is evidence that complex life forms come from less complex. The fossil record, and the genetic record is replete with evidence. The 'zero' evidence only comes into play when you introduce a creator.

---

You keep getting hung up on the fact we are composed of matter, instead of paying attention to the operative words: formed. I am not sure if it's intentional, or you are still misunderstanding me.

Once again, there is zero evidence complex organisms evolved from inanimate matter. But if you think I am wrong, feel free to post your evidence.

---

Once again, the fossil record and the genetic record demonstrates evolution from simpler to more complex forms of life. Evidence of what has occurred with life through time. We already know the organic compounds necessary for abiogenesis occur naturally. Eventually, we'll know the complete process. With research, the details are revealed bit by bit. The fact that we are here, made of inanimate matter (C, H, O, P, Ca, N, Na, Cl, Fe) that has organized itself into animate life is evidence in and of itself.

---

Once again you're choosing to ignore my statement because it doesn't support your absurd position. As stated for the 5th time, you and I both know there's no evidence whatsoever of complex organisms evolving from inanimate matter. That's a fact.

Now you may think one days science will prove as such, but your theory is no less far fetched at this time than the idea a creator exists. Sorry

---

The fact that you're walking around made up of inanimate matter is prima facie evidence. What's absurd, evidence based evolutionary biology and paleontology, or insistence in a primitive imaginary belief? Think about it. Truth is inconvenient to what you've been taught to believe.

---

You've asserted a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy, not prima facie evidence . You are making a correlation that you believe appears to suggest causality. However, your conclusion appears to be based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors potentially responsible for the result that might rule out the connection (i.e. a Creator).

So no, the fact we are made of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus does not suggest (much less prove) that complex organisms evolved from inanimate matter.

---

And I guess you appeared on this planet without conception.

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

J.R. said:

---

i'm a member of a PCA church in Dallas, but also attend a PCUSA also. %A0 Those 2 churches are on extraordinarily solid foot including both churches in the midst of huge construction additions. %A0 I don't find that there is a huge difference in either of the churches practices. %A0 %A0I enjoy both equally. %A0 Speaking as a recovering Baptist!

---

Personal anecdotes aside, I am not surprised your PCA church in the heart of the Bible Belt is doing well. %A0Many churches do well in the heart of the Bible Belt, especially those who adhere to sound doctrine. %A0Although I don't agree with all of the PCA's beliefs, as between the two groups, it is doing much better than PCUSA due in large part to its resistance to the woke element that has infected PCUSA, which the numbers show is dying.

Where you really see the decline is when you go outside of the Bible Belt. %A0

---

Religion is archaic, with no overarching purpose for continued existence. It can't hold up in the face of knowledge and truth.

---

And yet it does, my atheist friend. %A0Its adherents have been responsible for some of the greatest leaps in technology, the greatest forms of govt., and the greatest acts of kindness known to man.

As of yet, knowledge and truth haven't proven that complex life forms came from inanimate matter. %A0Until it does (it won't), religion will remain with us.

---

The progress you describe is not due to religion. And you'd be wrong about that. The elements you consist of are inanimate matter.

---

Unfortunately, you have insufficient evidence to prove your theory that complex living organisms formed from inanimate matter. %A0It's an absurd position on its face.

But what's funny is you'd believe that b.s. over there being a creator.

---

Your made from inanimate elements (and in turn particles), just like everything else in this universe. There is objective evidence for my belief. You have no objective evidence for a creator.

---

You need to read my poster a little closer. %A0I said, you (and science) haven't proven that complex life forms came from inanimate matter. %A0In other words, you have zero evidence that complex life forms evolved from inanimate matter.

In short, the evidence of your beliefs is no better than mine.

---

Not sure about your definition of inanimate matter. But, the fact that all life is made of baryonic matter (if that is your inanimate matter definition), along with what we know and have observed about evolution, I'd say skews the probability. And yes, there is evidence that complex life forms come from less complex. The fossil record, and the genetic record is replete with evidence. The 'zero' evidence only comes into play when you introduce a creator.

---

You keep getting hung up on the fact we are composed of matter, instead of paying attention to the operative words: formed. %A0I am not sure if it's intentional, or you are still misunderstanding me.

Once again, there is zero evidence complex organisms evolved from inanimate matter. %A0But if you think I am wrong, feel free to post your evidence.

---

Once again, the fossil record and the genetic record demonstrates evolution from simpler to more complex forms of life. Evidence of what has occurred with life through time. We already know the organic compounds necessary for abiogenesis occur naturally. Eventually, we'll know the complete process. With research, the details are revealed bit by bit. The fact that we are here, made of inanimate matter (C, H, O, P, Ca, N, Na, Cl, Fe) that has organized itself into animate life is evidence in and of itself.

---

Once again you're choosing to ignore my statement because it doesn't support your absurd position. %A0As stated for the 5th time, you and I both know there's no evidence whatsoever of complex organisms evolving from inanimate matter. %A0That's a fact. %A0

Now you may think one days science will prove as such, but your theory is no less far fetched at this time than the idea a creator exists. %A0Sorry

---

The fact that you're walking around made up of inanimate matter is prima facie evidence. What's absurd, evidence based evolutionary biology and paleontology, or insistence in a primitive imaginary belief? Think about it. Truth is inconvenient to what you've been taught to believe.

---

You've asserted a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy, not prima facie evidence . %A0You are making a correlation that you believe appears to suggest causality. %A0However, your conclusion appears to be based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors potentially responsible for the result that might rule out the connection (i.e. a Creator). %A0

So no, the fact we are made of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus does not suggest (much less prove) that complex organisms evolved from inanimate matter.

---

And I guess you appeared on this planet without conception.

---

The biological act of conception is quite different from your leap of faith that complex organisms evolved from inanimate matter.

Waco1947 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" You have no objective evidence for a creator."

Aside from the Big Bang?

---

The Big Bang is evidence of the beginning of the Universe. So far, there is no objective evidence, or any evidence linking the Big Bang to a creator.

---

What caused the Big Bang?

Religion has a better answer than Science so far on that one.

---

Quantum physics gives a plausible explanation, which is far better than an imaginary primitive being is causal. Which religion is correct? Who caused your imaginary being? Why would such a being hide themselves in secrecy, if they want the world to recognize and give them credit? Religion has no answer other than making up an explanation for the furtherance of religious objectives. Science follows the evidence of reality, where ever it leads. Evidence points to a natural cause. There is no supernatural evidence of anything.

---

No one understands Quantum Physics, least of all a blowhard on an internet forum. I will stick with the historical and personal evidence of the Living God. You can keep your still-working-on-it theory.

---

Quote:

---

I will stick with the historical and personal evidence of the Living God.

---

= I will stick with the stories and imaginations of primitive Iron Age people, who didn't even know the earth orbits the sun, because that is more palatable when confronted with my own mortality.

---

You know nothing directly about the Iron Age, but depend on what someone else told you. The funny thing is that we both depend on external sources, but mine has always been clear that we depend on faith, while you pretend to 'know' something which you cannot actually know.

We believe there was a Big Bang, but no one has been able to explain why it happened, what caused it to happen, or many of the questions even Physics has been facing since they started to look. But you cling to the assumption that your theory is true just because you like it, which is no better than the debunked theories like Phrenology, Eugenics, or all the crap thrown out by Al Gore in his scam to sell carbon credits.

You may ignore the value of Faith in human history, and ignore the impact of people like Joan of Arc, Martin Luther King Jr., George Washington, Ghandi, or John Paul II, yet their effect is true and important. Frankly, it is a dismal life which ignores the bright lights of people who lived in faith.

---

Extrapolation, deflection, misdirection, false assumptions and rabbit trails, none of which reflects what I believe, or is even germane to the discussion. We know the Big Bang occurred because we have the evidence from, among other things, the cosmic microwave background, and from the recent discovery and study of gravitational waves. Quantum physics give us a plausible explanation of how it could happen without the need for a creator. 'Why' presupposes an intent, when there is only evidence for how it happened. The more we learn about particle physics, the closer we'll get to understanding. Physics gives us far more plausible answers than faith in primitive tales. Probability is not in your favor.

---

you are not attacking religion. You're doing a great job with science and faith. We agree on the science of reality but I lay claim to a God of love. There is a difference. I have Biblical faith which is the bedrock of the scriptures. The scriptures were never intended as the science of the physical world nor were they intended to be history (although the Bible contains history). Rather they are the good news of faith God is with us.

---

Quote:

---

The scriptures were never intended as the science of the physical world nor were they intended to be history (although the Bible contains history).

---

I agree with that part. The rest is a statement of belief in something without objective evidence. Although, I guess it could depend upon your definition of God. What is your definition?

I'm always amused when TS repeats his demand for "objective evidence". That phrase alone precludes him from ever accepting God's existence, as it would require God to submit to human control and approval, making in essence Man into God.

It's a rhetorical trick by TS, not a genuine attempt to work out the matter, but it tells me how TS thinks.

TexasScientist said:

---

Canon said:

---

The real question is, why is TS so deeply invested in attempting to attack and destroy the personal faith of others? He is to atheism what the new Twitter poster is to homosexuality. There's no topic into which each won't absurdly try and shoehorn their favorite obsession.

If you disagree with the inner thoughts/beliefs of others, which don't affect you in any way, and if those people have stated they aren't interested in your breathless criticism, particularly on topics unrelated to Christianity, the civil thing to do is agree to disagree.

---

I generally respond when someone posts an absurd assertion about religion. This particular thread is about a group of Presbyterian Christians and what they believe/teach. Surely, you're not saying there is no room for expressing differing opinions on this thread. Isn't this discussion civil disagreement, or are you only wanting civil agreement? Agreeing to disagree yields silence.

---

Lol! If two people are discussing how Eratosthenes confirmed the earth's spherical shape and calculated its circumference at 40,030 km, but debated the actual calculable circumference with sticks, you would chime in that the earth was flat and insist that anyone who believes the earth is round without having been in space is delusional.

We were discussing two views of a shared belief. Your incessantly piping up that you don't believe it and no one else should either isn't a legitimate part of that discussion. I'm sorry you can't see that.