Home - List All Discussions

Love The Unborn!!!

Enough Said!!!

by: joe

Anyone who claims to be pro-life must love the unborn. I for one Love Them!!! That which God created we must love.

reply from: carolemarie

God created the abortion provider as well...are you willing to love them?

reply from: lukesmom

Oooh, that's a hard one. Do I have too? I hate their actions, I hate what they stand for. I guess I can't say I hate them personally as I don't know them but their actions and behaviour define them... Could I "love" Hitler or others who have intentionally and wantonly hurt innocent? I gotta really ponder this one for awhile.

reply from: joe

I would love them but they must be stopped...period.
I would be showing the ultimate hatred if I watch the innocent human beings die at the hands of evil and do nothing about it.

reply from: carolemarie

Oooh, that's a hard one. Do I have too? I hate their actions, I hate what they stand for. I guess I can't say I hate them personally as I don't know them but their actions and behaviour define them... Could I "love" Hitler or others who have intentionally and wantonly hurt innocent? I gotta really ponder this one for awhile.
God rarely asks us to do what is easy and what come naturally....
All I know is He loved me when I was not worth loving....and if Hitler had asked, He would have forgave him as well.
God is not easy

reply from: joe

Wow!!! That is amazing, you knowing the answer that God would give Hitler. Did God directly tell you this???

reply from: angell

Carolemarie who are you to say that God forgives Hitler?

reply from: carolemarie

I said that if Hitler had asked, God would have forgiven him.
Because Joe, if we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive us.

reply from: joe

Again, you should not speak for God concerning things you do not understand. It takes repentance and that is between God and yourself.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Because Jesus forgives everyone. Period.

reply from: lukesmom

Not everyone. First they have to ASK and repent of their sins.

reply from: carolemarie

Which is what I said, if Hilter had asked forgivness, he would have received it.

reply from: CharlesD

"Whosoever will call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." Rom. 10:13
The Bible doesn't exclude anyone from that statement. If Hitler had been truly repentant and called on the name of the Lord, he would have been forgiven. Scripture doesn't say that only certain sins can be forgiven by God. Anyone who calls on Him and is truly repentant will be reconciled to Him.

reply from: carolemarie

exactly, thanks Charles D

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Joe and Lukesmom are correct, repentance is REQUIRED for forgiveness of sins. John the Baptist would not even baptize someone unless they were exhibiting fruits worthy of repentance. Faith without works is dead, being alone. One must actually STOP SINNING. A person who practices sin will never be saved, ever.

reply from: carolemarie

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive...

reply from: 4given

Repentance and remission of sins. One must be truly repentant to seek forgiveness and to receive it.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

You are really great at one liners!
Did you ever notice the Bible is really thick? - over 1,000 pages in most cases.
Did you ever hear of the term context?
If you read the 5 books of Moses, probably focusing on Leviticus, you will see that the Sacifice is only to be applied for sins made in ignornance or unintentionally. The sacrifice is not to be applied if one is sinning presumptously, willfully, with a high hand (to use terms in different translations).
In the Old Testament one placed his hands on the head of the sacrifice and confessed his sin. It is written matter of factly that God will forgive him.
Now the New Testament said you no longer had to put your hands on the head of an animal, confess your sin, and shed it's blood for God to forgive you. God said Jesus became the once for all Sacrifice, you don't need to continually sacrifice animals. Paul said you could just have faith that if you confessed your sins God would be faithful and just to forgive you.
Your one liner means we no longer need to rely on the old sacrificial system of animal blood. Your one liner does not mean there are no other strings attached. Your one liner does not mean you can be a murdering unrepentant villian and still receive forgiveness.

reply from: carolemarie

Did I ever say that you didn't have to be sorry? No. And if you are confessing your sins, it follows you consider them sins and you are sorry you did them....if Hitler (or anyone) confess their sins and asked God to forgive them He will-
Get a grip GL4U2L

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Do you perceive that I'm losing my grip on reality?
The Old Testament tells us what most Ministers are encouraged by the congregants to preach: "Speak unto us smooth things, tell us lies." Smooth wonderful melodic messages are what the people want, that's what they get! The ministers fill the room to the rafters and the collection plate runs over.
Like you, should I be listening to these smooth things? - these lies that are perpetrated in congregations today?

reply from: RiverMoonLady

John 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
John 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
John 15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.
John 15:17 These things I command you, that ye love one another.
Romans 12:10 Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another.
Romans 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
Ephesians 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love.
1 Thessalonians 3:12 And the Lord make you to increase and abound in love one toward another, and toward all men, even as we do toward you.
1 Peter 1:22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently.
1 Peter 3:8 Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous.
1 John 3:11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.
1 John 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
1 John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
1 John 4:11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.
1 John 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.
2 John 1:5 And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another.
Seems to me that the Bible is very specific on the subject of loving one another.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

You are required to love your neighbor. Anyone who hates his neighbor is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life or any inheritance in the Kingdom of God.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Not everyone. First they have to ASK and repent of their sins.
I thought it was implied that the person had already asked.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

What exactly is "repenting"? It can't be as simple as feeling sorry for what you've done in the past.

reply from: BossMomma

You are really great at one liners!
Did you ever notice the Bible is really thick? - over 1,000 pages in most cases.
Did you ever hear of the term context?
If you read the 5 books of Moses, probably focusing on Leviticus, you will see that the Sacifice is only to be applied for sins made in ignornance or unintentionally. The sacrifice is not to be applied if one is sinning presumptously, willfully, with a high hand (to use terms in different translations).
In the Old Testament one placed his hands on the head of the sacrifice and confessed his sin. It is written matter of factly that God will forgive him.
Now the New Testament said you no longer had to put your hands on the head of an animal, confess your sin, and shed it's blood for God to forgive you. God said Jesus became the once for all Sacrifice, you don't need to continually sacrifice animals. Paul said you could just have faith that if you confessed your sins God would be faithful and just to forgive you.
Your one liner means we no longer need to rely on the old sacrificial system of animal blood. Your one liner does not mean there are no other strings attached. Your one liner does not mean you can be a murdering unrepentant villian and still receive forgiveness.
Sometimes the best of points are made in the fewest of words. The bible makes it clear that Jesus will forgive you if you but ask and repent.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

In the simplest of terms, we are commanded to love the SINNER but hate the SIN. There is, of course, a HUGE difference.
"Repentance" means admitting to Christ that you have sinned and ASKING for His forgiveness. There is no "automatic" forgiveness.

reply from: CharlesD

You are driving down a highway heading north. The destination you need to reach lies to the south. At a certain point you become aware that you are heading in the wrong direction. You feel upset that you are heading in the wrong direction but you keep driving. Finally you take an exit, turn around, and start heading south. It is at this moment that you repented. Beforehand, you felt sorry, but you were still heading in the wrong direction. You weren't going to reach your destination, no matter how sorry you felt. It took that turn around.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Charles, that was a great way to describe it!

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

It also says there is no more sacrifice for those who willingly continue to sin (serving sin rather than God) after knowing "the truth," and that when you are "reborn," having died with Christ, accepting his gift of salvation, you become "dead to sin" and can no longer sin. That's part of the "gift." Jesus said "be perfect as your father in heaven...."
Do you buy the "once saved, always saved" man made doctrine? Do you believe you can "sin" (willingly) and still be saved (after supposedly being "born again")? According to my understanding of scripture, you can not be "saved" if you continue to sin, despite what those who interpret the scriptures so as to conform them to the way of life they choose rather than conforming their lives to how the scriptures say they are to live have to say on the matter.
They invariably insist that it is "impossible" for them to live free of sin, and that they need only repent each time to be forgiven once more, showing that they have no faith in God to free them from sin as promised, despite the scriptural assurance that nothing is impossible if you have faith....that with God, all things are possible. Any "Christian" who says it is impossible for them to not sin is clearly implying that the Bible is a lie...
Concerned parent is correct again. He sounds like a regular Herbert Armstrong (see Armstrongism).

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Ok, so it's making the change in your life to be sin-free. Obviously everyone's not perfect though, so we keep turning north and then back south. But how can you keep doing that? I mean, what's the mindset of truly being repentant for your whole life?

reply from: carolemarie

It also says there is no more sacrifice for those who willingly continue to sin (serving sin rather than God) after knowing "the truth," and that when you are "reborn," having died with Christ, accepting his gift of salvation, you become "dead to sin" and can no longer sin. That's part of the "gift." Jesus said "be perfect as your father in heaven...."
Do you buy the "once saved, always saved" man made doctrine? Do you believe you can "sin" (willingly) and still be saved (after supposedly being "born again")? According to my understanding of scripture, you can not be "saved" if you continue to sin, despite what those who interpret the scriptures so as to conform them to the way of life they choose rather than conforming their lives to how the scriptures say they are to live have to say on the matter.
They invariably insist that it is "impossible" for them to live free of sin, and that they need only repent each time to be forgiven once more, showing that they have no faith in God to free them from sin as promised, despite the scriptural assurance that nothing is impossible if you have faith....that with God, all things are possible. Any "Christian" who says it is impossible for them to not sin is clearly implying that the Bible is a lie...
That verse doesn't mean that we will not sin anymore. It simply states that if you are offered the gospel and reject it, (like not believing) there is no further sacrifice that will give you forgivness for your sins. It is only through believing and accepting the sacrifice of Christ that saves us. If you reject Jesus, there is nothing left but punishment. Naturally, you can change your mind but if you don't, you have treated the sacrifice of the Son of God as an unholy thing and "trampled it under your feet"
This has nothing to do with Christians sinning. We will continue to sin because we are fallen human beings. Paul himself said he has not yet attained perfection, but you keep striving to become more Christ like.
The only sin that can't have forgivnss is the sin of unbelief.

reply from: scopia19822

"Do you buy the "once saved, always saved" man made doctrine? Do you believe you can "sin" (willingly) and still be saved (after supposedly being "born again")? According to my understanding of scripture, you can not be "saved" if you continue to sin, despite what those who interpret the scriptures so as to conform them to the way of life they choose rather than conforming their lives to how the scriptures say they are to live have to say on the matter. "
I dont buy that at all. Paul says in Phillipians that we are to "work out our salvation with fear and trembling". Faith is a journey. You cannot go out an sin and keep sinning and expect to still go to Heaven. Some people believe that once they are saved and always will be thinks they can continue to go out and sin and still go to Heaven. It does not work that way. Some also think that just because they have "faith" they are just fine. We are supposed to perform good deeds and do good works. In the book of James it says "faith without works is dead".

reply from: carolemarie

It also says, "if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father 1 John 1:21
We are saved by belief in Christ, not works so no man can boast.
It is by the sacrifice of Christ we enter heaven, not anything you have done or do.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Genesis 26:4-5 "...And in your offspring all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws."
James 2:20-22, 24, 26 "Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is worthless? Was not our father Abraham justified when he offered up Isaac on the alter? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works....You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone....faith apart from works is dead"
Martin Luther hated James and wanted the book removed from the Bible. James said we had to have "works" working together with our "faith".
You may recall that I said man's existence is composed of two elements; the body (physical machinery) and spirit (mind).
James 2:26 "For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead."
We need both the body (called a soul) and the mind (called a spirit) to have a complete living entity. Likewise, if faith and works aren't combined you have nothing; a dead limp worthless nothing.

reply from: nancyu

Ok, so it's making the change in your life to be sin-free. Obviously everyone's not perfect though, so we keep turning north and then back south. But how can you keep doing that? I mean, what's the mindset of truly being repentant for your whole life?
A new compass?

reply from: carolemarie

Genesis 26:4-5 "...And in your offspring all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws."
James 2:20-22, 24, 26 "Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is worthless? Was not our father Abraham justified when he offered up Isaac on the alter? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works....You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone....faith apart from works is dead"
Martin Luther hated James and wanted the book removed from the Bible. James said we had to have "works" working together with our "faith".
You may recall that I said man's existence is composed of two elements; the body (physical machinery) and spirit (mind).
James 2:26 "For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead."
We need both the body (called a soul) and the mind (called a spirit) to have a complete living entity. Likewise, if faith and works aren't combined you have nothing; a dead limp worthless nothing.
The thief on the cross had no works.
Bill Gates does lots of good works, but he isn't a Christian.
Try to stay in the NT

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Genesis 26:4-5 "...And in your offspring all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws."
James 2:20-22, 24, 26 "Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is worthless? Was not our father Abraham justified when he offered up Isaac on the alter? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works....You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone....faith apart from works is dead"
Martin Luther hated James and wanted the book removed from the Bible. James said we had to have "works" working together with our "faith".
You may recall that I said man's existence is composed of two elements; the body (physical machinery) and spirit (mind).
James 2:26 "For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead."
We need both the body (called a soul) and the mind (called a spirit) to have a complete living entity. Likewise, if faith and works aren't combined you have nothing; a dead limp worthless nothing.
Without works you cannot be saved! See above explanation.

reply from: CharlesD

A man was passing through a small town and needed a haircut. He went in and noticed a lot of Christian material on the walls, scripture quotes and what not, and asked about it. He was told that the barber was also the local Baptist minister. So he came in only to find out that the minister was out that day and his wife, Grace, was cutting hair in his place. The man decided to splurge and also get a shave in addition to the haircut. Grace cut his hair and gave him a nice close shave, he paid her, and then he went on his way. The next day he got up and noticed that his face was still as smooth as it was the day before, and he had always had fast growing facial hair. This continued for four straight days. His face was as smooth as can be. He went back to that small town and stopped in at the barber shop, only to find that the minister was the one cutting hair that day. He inquired about why his facial hair wasn't growing back since he had been there earlier and the minister replied, "You were shaved by Grace. Once shaved, always shaved."

reply from: carolemarie

That's a cute story Charles! Almost as good as Adam not being a Southern!
And GL4U2L,
The thief on the cross had no works yet he was in paradise that day with Jesus.
Your works don't save you. Your relationship with Jesus does. Salvation is all Jesus-His work on the cross paid our debt, His blood bought our freedom, his rightousness is what the Father looks on.
All our works are nothing but filthy rags in His sight.
That being said, usually if you love someone you try to live to please them and do things that they will like. BUT even if you have no works, if you believe and repent you will be saved.

reply from: joe

21"(R)Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
22"(S)Many will say to Me on (T)that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'
23"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; (U)DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'

reply from: carolemarie

Only a relationship with Jesus will save you. He has purchased with His blood our souls for God. It is all about relationship.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

My auntie told me to just get a New Testament. I had a Good News for Modern Man, New Testament Only.
Hey, I've heard of a new study bible that may be just what you are thinking of.
The Reverend Twistruth Study Bible - NIV (Nearly Inspired Version)
Testimonals from satisfied readers:
"I was really confused by some passages until I got the Reverend Twistruth Study Bible. Thanks to Rev. Twistruth, I no longer feel guilty about disobeying some of the commandments. Praise the Lord!" - Ms. Grace Lawless
"No Christian should be without this Bible. A Christian needs to understand that we are freed from the Law and don't need that Jewish stuff. No other Bible makes this clearer than the reverend Twistruth Study Bible." - Torah B. Gone
To inquire about obtaining copies of the comic book "Rev. Twistruth & His Disciples; See What Happens When the Messianic Movement Infiltrates Rev. Twistruth's Church!" contact www.gatesofeden.org or Gates of Eden, PO Box 2257, East Peoria, IL 61611-0257

reply from: lukesmom

Actually we don't know much about the thief on the cross. It could be possible he "did good works". Heck, he could have been a theif stealing food to feed the hungry. He could have been crucified as a theif but was actually innocent. Anyway, he accepted Jesus and asked for salvation and lived his faith in his dying. Living your faith qualifies as doing good works as you are being an example to others, therefore "teaching" others. Performing good works doesn't have to be boastful or noisy but instead living your faith to help and teach fellow humans. Good works can be as simple as praying for others or as complicated and missionary work. You are right, "works" alone may not lead to salvation but neither will just plain faith. Ever hear of "Put your faith to work"? Faith and good works go hand in hand down the road to salvation. That said, God and Jesus can save or not save whomever they want. Who are we to say who is saved and who is not?

reply from: carolemarie

GL2U4L
You are against the direct teaching of Jesus? You want us to live under the law that NOBODY CAN KEEP?
The punishment under the Law is death for any transgression. People can't do that. Jesus came to satisfy the law so we can enjoy a right relationship with God.
He took the punishment for our sins so we don't have to. He is nice!
I know that Jesus saved me, I was a mess and on the fast track to hell, and God intervened and rescued me. And I wasn't looking to be rescued or didn't even believe. He did it because He is kind and loved me. I love Him, because HE first loved me....your view of God is some tyrant who wants to squash people and it isn't true....He searched for me and gently lead me to find Him. God is out looking for us, not to destroy us, but to bless us and bring us into a relationship with Him. He is our Father and loves us. I don't know where you get your twisted views, but God IS LOVE

reply from: carolemarie

We have free will to live as we please....and one day I was finally so sick and tired of my life and desperate enough to ask Him if He was real to prove it by rescuing me out of the mess I was in, and He did.
He waited till I asked...He will not force you to love Him, if He wanted that, we would just be robots.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

The "twisted view" is an invention from your own mind. Don't attribute it to me. Why do shrinks ask patients to look at ink spots and tell them what they see. It is nothing but an ink spot, but the patient sees what he or she is thinking about. You looked at an ink spot and said "God is some tyrant who wants to squash people". That came from you, that is what you were thinking.

reply from: CharlesD

The law exists to give us a standard by which we can know that we are sinners. Without a standard to measure up to, there is no falling short, thus no sin. Knowledge of sin comes from having the law, and that knowledge leads us to recognize our need for salvation. It is impossible for a person to completely measure up to the law. If it were possible, there would be no need for a savior to start with.

reply from: CharlesD

I would say that those are people who never had the relationship to start with.
The law is fine for its purpose, but part of the law is the idea of shed blood paying for sin. Christ became the ultimate fulfillment of that requirement of the law through the shedding of His blood. If people haven't appropriated that for themselves, then it doesn't matter what they do in the Lord's name. A lot of people claim to be doing this or that for the Lord but don't know Him.

reply from: joe

I would say that those are people who never had the relationship to start with.
The law is fine for its purpose, but part of the law is the idea of shed blood paying for sin. Christ became the ultimate fulfillment of that requirement of the law through the shedding of His blood. If people haven't appropriated that for themselves, then it doesn't matter what they do in the Lord's name. A lot of people claim to be doing this or that for the Lord but don't know Him.
Whoever is addressing Jesus in this scripture clearly acknowledges his authority. The judgment was given against that persons deeds/transgressions.
The blood of his sacrifice must be received with repentance that complies with his teachings, that is the narrow way.
G2962
kurios; from kuros (authority); lord, master: - lord (10), Lord (626), Lord of lords (2), Lord's (12), lords (1), master (38), master's (3), masters (8), masters' (1), owner (6), owners (1), sir (11), sirs (1).
G458
anomia; from G459; lawlessness: - lawless deed (1), lawless deeds (2), lawlessness (12).
G459
anomos; from G1 (as a neg. pref.) and G3551; lawless, without law: - godless men (1), lawless (2), lawless one (1), transgressors (2), without the law (1), without law (1), without law (2).

reply from: LiberalChiRo

If he created each of us, he would know the likelihood of us 'loving' him and finding salvation.
Therefore he basically decided from conception whether we would go to Heaven or Hell.
Doesn't sound very reasonable, does it?
Take for example someone who has sinned a moderate amount, but doesn't have enough problems (like you had) to warrant reaching out for salvation.
That person will go to Hell.
How is that fair?
You were a ratbag and get into Heaven.
The person in our example was just an ordinary chap and goes to Hell.
Why would you give out an infinite punishment (Hell) for a finite set of crimes (sins)?
That makes about as much sense as cutting off your child's hands for taking a cookie from the jar without asking!!!
Why can you not see this?!?!
You're arguing free will vs omniscience you realise. If you'd like to get into a debate on that, then just ASK! I have my own personal explanation.

reply from: CharlesD

The two are not mutually exclusive. The explanation is rather lengthy though, if you do proper justice to it. The shortened version:
God gave you free will to decide as you choose.
He knew ahead of time what your decision would be, but it was still your decision.
That short version doesn't really cash it out properly, but that is the essence of the idea.
Basically, God knows you well enough to know how you will choose. If I offer my wife a cup of tea, accepting it is her choice but I can tell you now with pretty good certainty, as close to 100% as is possible, that she will accept the cup of tea. Does my knowing that take anything away from her free will to accept or decline the cup of tea? I also know with every bit the same certainty that were I to offer her a beer, she would turn it down. That doesn't mean it's not her decision. My knowing what the decision will be in no way cancels out her free will to make the decision. I hope that makes some sense.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

21"(R)Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
22"(S)Many will say to Me on (T)that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'
23"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; (U)DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'
Hey wait a minute, that sort of goes with my whole idea that you don't have to be christian to go to heaven (or "be saved"), as long as you're a good person and perform God's deeds (whether you are aware you are doing them or admit to it). I always felt that God is love; if you live a life where you love others and care for each other etc, that you will be a good person, and you will go to heaven. Or "be saved", whatever you want to call it.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

The two are not mutually exclusive. The explanation is rather lengthy though, if you do proper justice to it. The shortened version:
God gave you free will to decide as you choose.
He knew ahead of time what your decision would be, but it was still your decision.
That short version doesn't really cash it out properly, but that is the essence of the idea.
Basically, God knows you well enough to know how you will choose. If I offer my wife a cup of tea, accepting it is her choice but I can tell you now with pretty good certainty, as close to 100% as is possible, that she will accept the cup of tea. Does my knowing that take anything away from her free will to accept or decline the cup of tea? I also know with every bit the same certainty that were I to offer her a beer, she would turn it down. That doesn't mean it's not her decision. My knowing what the decision will be in no way cancels out her free will to make the decision. I hope that makes some sense.
I've heard that explanation before and I can tear it to shreds. You do not actually know for certain what your wife will do; you can only guess. God KNOWS. IF he knows, then you are not actually making a choice, you are simply performing the deed that God has predestined you to perform.
All of that does not explain why God gets PISSED when we make the "wrong" choice; because if he knows already the choices we will make, what excuse does he have for getting angry? That's like carving a piece of wood into a train, and then getting angry at it because it is a train... Rather bipolar don't you think? No, the "He knows us" theory just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
And we cannot have free will if we have said "plan". Because it is like God has written a play. We do not have any choice but to play our part, because God already knows what is going to happen. IF we deviated from the lines, then that would be going against God's plan, which would imply he didn't know it was going to happen, which means he's NOT omniscient at all.
No, that doesn't make any sense at all, not to me anyway. I have a very scientific and analytical mind. I'll explain my processing of free will with omniscience.
Some of you may know about 10 dimensional theory. Yes, I'm mixing science and religion, so hold onto your hats here. This is something solid imo.
We all know about the first 4 dimensions. Obviously they are depth, width, height, and the 4th is time. To us, time is a line, a line that only goes in one direction, and we can only see one line. It may branch off when we make a choice, but from our point of view, it still feels like one line. Our life.
To shorten things, as you go up in the dimensions, you get to a point where every possible timeline (infinite) is contained within the universe. There are of course an infinite number of possible universes too. So go up another level. You get to a point where every possible universe with every possible timeline is all contained within one point...
and to me, that is God. God is Everything. You can't go any higher than that. Imagine for a moment if you were in this position of the 10th dimension (as it happens to be). You could see every possible choice that every person could ever make. Since you are seeing all of history at the same time, it would be kind of looking down at a tree branch. It's not that time is moving, but more like time IS a thing.
So every choice that I make from my point of view looks like a branch to God. He sees every choice I make, but he also sees me taking the other choice at the exact same time (alternate universes where you wear the blue socks instead of the red ones). Confused yet? Sorry. So from my point of view, I have completely free will. I only see one of me, I only see one of the paths my life takes. But God can see every choice I make, thus, he knows everything. It's not that he knows I am going to choose red socks instead of blue... it's that, to Him, I chose BOTH!
Does that make any sense? There's a link below to the video on ten dimensional theory. I didn't "get it" past about the sixth dimension the first time I watched it, back when I was non-religious. But weirdly enough, after I'd started questioning my own lack of faith, and questioning omniscience and free will, I watched it again, and it suddenly made sense! The whole omniscience-free-will thing was a huge barrier for me, as you can tell by the arguments I have against most traditional explanations. I can tear most of them apart. I can't tear apart the 10 dimensional one. It makes sense to me.
Imagining The Tenth Dimension:
http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php
By the way, interesting fact, the video mentions "If we could see ourselves in the 4th dimension, we would see ourselves as one long undulating line with our embryonic selves at one end..." aka, the author feels that our life begins BEFORE birth!!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

What if you live a good life and when you die, you don't want to go to Heaven or Hell?
Is God 'love' enough to let people have eternal sleep if they want it?
If we live a good life and then nothing happens, then so what? At least you contributed to humanity instead of being a fetid pile of feces.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Is God's love enough to let people sleep forever?
Here's my question: How do you know what the afterlife is? How do you know what my perception of the afterlife is? Do you even know if I believe in Hell? Do you even know if I believe in a conscious heaven where people sip tea with angels?
Maybe you should ask me, first.

reply from: fetalisa

But we have no evidence whatsoever for the existence of this god you worship, other than a book which claims serpents (Gen 3:1) and donkeys (Num 22:28) can speak as humans do. Do you believe rabbits can speak because of a Bugs Bunny cartoon? If not, then how can you believe in this god, wherein the book which allegedly provides evidence of his existence includes fables with talking animals, no different than Bugs Bunny?
fa*ble A usually short narrative making an edifying or cautionary point and often employing as characters animals that speak and act like humans (The American HeritageĀ® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition - Copyright Ā© 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.)
Genesis 3:1 "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
Numbers 22:28 And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?
I suppose if you can believe a cat could speak in Alice in Wonderland, you might also believe the above verses are true. However, the dictionary very clearly defines the above verses as fable, nothing more and nothing less, which means any evidence for the invisible sky daddy in which you believe is nonexistent.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Fetalista, if you talk to some Biblical scholars, they will actually reveal to you that much of the talking animals are simply metaphors, and not direct implications of talking animals.

reply from: fetalisa

So is the resurrection. Your point?

reply from: fetalisa

So is the resurrection. Your point?

reply from: joe

But we have no evidence whatsoever for the existence of this god you worship, other than a book
You think I believe in God because of the Bible? LOL.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

So is the resurrection. Your point?
... to refute YOUR point of implying that Christianity is stupid because supposedly the followers believe in "talking animals".

reply from: fetalisa

According to the fairy tales of the bible, you are absolutely correct:
And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it. (John 14:13-14 NAB)
So ask Jeebus to not grant you an afterlife and it will be so.

reply from: fetalisa

I am sorry you are ignorant of the existence of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism branch of Christianity. Even if you are not a literalist, you have not one shred of proof for the existence of your god, whoever that god may be.

reply from: joe

Maybe some other time.

reply from: CharlesD

Well, I'm not what you could call a full blown Calvinist on that issue. I probably fall somewhere in the middle, but that is an analogy that I heard a Calvinist preacher use and I think it explained that viewpoint in a somewhat acceptable manner. That's only the short version though.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Don't answer a question with a question.
If I don't want an afterlife, God should be loving enough to give my wish, yes? Or no?
I do not believe in the afterlife you are implying I do. Thus, I cannot answer your question. You can't choose to not have an "afterlife" just like gravity can't choose not to work. It's part of nature, part of God. Water flows, ice melts. In my opinion, when people die, their souls (which were never really wholly separate from God) return to the "ocean" of energy that they have always been a part of: God. You can't destroy or create energy or matter according to the laws of physics. I think "heaven" is more like rejoining with the universal "mind"; no single person is conscious of themselves in this "whole" state of existence. "Hell" in my mind is to be severed completely from this force of energy; to be alone and floating disconnected completely from what - even in life - we are connected to like waves on an ocean. It is a disconnect from that "energy" of love. The original concept of hell was The Void; nothingness. That's what hell is to me. But I also believe that this almost never happens.

reply from: joe

Maybe some other time.
Weak.
I am not here to make a case for God. If you cannot see him, then don't believe in him.

reply from: fetalisa

No, I think you nonrational because belief in gods is nonrational. You've not so much as a single shred of proof for the existence of gods, whether your own or someone else's. Religion requires faith, which is belief without reason.

reply from: fetalisa

Well that would hardly work, since Jeebus is just as real as http://members.aol.com/pseisen/countchocula/chocface.gif. This is very simple to demonstrate. Write down 16 numbers on a piece of paper in groups of four as follows:
A. XXXX
B. XXXX
C. XXXX
D. XXXX
Then ask any Christian to go ask Jeebus what those 16 numbers are, since Jeebus repeatedly states in the bible:
Matthew 21:22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.
Matthew 7:7-8 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
Mark 11:24 Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.
Luke 11:9 And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
Try not to laugh as the Christians provide every excuse in the world as to how a god that created the entire universe in 6 days, can't manage to cough up a measly 16 numbers. By studying the excuses provided by the Christians as to why Jeebus can't provide the 16 numbers, many lessons on the operation of denial can be gleaned.

reply from: joe

Belief without reason? You certainly are trying hard to convince me of something you cannot prove, I do not have that much faith.

reply from: joe

Why do you persist? Why such insecurity in your own faith?

reply from: joe

Why do you persist? Why such insecurity in your own faith?
*Smirk*
As I thought, unable to answer.

reply from: fetalisa

You are talking to someone who attempts to live their life based on texts dated 70 AD, so what did you expect? How about we base our medicine on texts from 70 AD as well? It doesn't make much sense, does it, but such is the way of the religious.

reply from: fetalisa

Atheism is a 'faith' only if not collecting stamps is a hobby.

reply from: joe

Atheism is a 'faith' only if not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Fetalisa is about to unveil proof God does not exist........(we might have to wait a while)

reply from: fetalisa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof is a logical fallacy, but then, logical fallacies seem to be your forte.
If you claim gods exist, the burden of proof is on you to provide your evidence. I have no obligation whatsoever to prove invisible pink unicorns do not exist. It's Logic 101 dude.

reply from: joe

So atheism is a fact without proof. Is that your logic.

reply from: joe

If you want to believe in Leprechauns or atheism, go ahead. You don't have to prove a thing to me.

reply from: joe

Okay, for you Leprechauns exist.

reply from: fetalisa

Do I have proof that leprechauns exist? No? Then why should I believe in them?
Do I have proof that unicorns exist? No? Then why should I believe in them?
Do I have proof that gods exist? No? Then why should I believe in them?

reply from: joe

Do I have proof that leprechauns exist? No? Then why should I believe in them?
Do I have proof that unicorns exist? No? Then why should I believe in them?
Do I have proof that gods exist? No? Then why should I believe in them?
Then don't believe.

reply from: BossMomma

If he loved you, why did he let all that bad stuff happen in the first place?!
Why can none of you see the outrageous contradiction inherent in your belief?
Sometimes bad things happen and it's no one's fault, blaming it on a deity is about as dumb as saying it's the devil that makes you do bad things. Furthermore I think sometimes bad things happen for a reason.

reply from: BossMomma

I must ask, what is your problem with religious faith? If you don't subscribe to it that's fine but others take solace in their faith, why attempt to tear them down? Is it just christianity you despise or is it religion in general?

reply from: BossMomma

My problem is not with religion.
It is with people willfully deluding themselves on such a grand scale.
It really pains me to see people's great personal strength in overcoming extreme adversity simply passed off as "Oh, God saved me. I had nothing to do with it."
Why should it "pain" you if they choose to give their god figure the credit? That should be their choice. If you take full credit for all of your accomplishments that is just as fine and no one is slamming you for it.

reply from: JRH

I must ask, what is your problem with religious faith? If you don't subscribe to it that's fine but others take solace in their faith, why attempt to tear them down? Is it just christianity you despise or is it religion in general?
Do you despise crazy people or just want them to stop being crazy because you pity them? I'm not trying to offend you, but this is how many atheists think. Since god has never been proven to exist I can't say I blame some of them from thinking of religion as highly dubious.

reply from: BossMomma

I must ask, what is your problem with religious faith? If you don't subscribe to it that's fine but others take solace in their faith, why attempt to tear them down? Is it just christianity you despise or is it religion in general?
Do you despise crazy people or just want them to stop being crazy because you pity them? I'm not trying to offend you, but this is how many atheists think. Since god has never been proven to exist I can't say I blame some of them from thinking of religion as highly dubious.
As someone who suffers a severe bi-polar disorder I don't call those with mental disorders crazy, I find the term offensive. I am an agnostic, I believe there is a powerful entity I'm just not sure of which to put faith in so I put a little stock in all religions. Athiests are free to believe in no god at all and live perfectly happy lives, why should those who have religion be insulted for their faith?

reply from: BossMomma

It pains me to see any human being think that they are so worthless or hopeless.
I don't attribute my successes in life to goblins or elves.
That would just be insane, wouldn't it?
In your opinion, which really matters only to you. No religion teaches that people are worthless or hopeless, you're grasping at straws now. Most religions teach humility which in moderation is a good thing.

reply from: BossMomma

A good while, I think you'd end up at a StarTrek convention first. Trekies are very popular in some places.

reply from: fetalisa

1. Because when one's house is destroyed in a hurricane and that person thanks a god that they are alive, they come across as quite childish and stupid, given they make no mention of the fact their god allowed their house to be destroyed. How can their god be responsible for saving their lives, but not be responsible for destroying their house?
2. Many seem to think belief in an invisible sky daddy grants them moral superiority. Belief in imaginary beings does not grant moral superiority.
3. Many seem to think belief in an invisible sky daddy grants them the right to shove those beliefs onto the taxpayers, by means of government and law, like say in banning abortion. Sorry, but one's belief in invisible sky daddies has nothing AT ALL to do with our laws, which is why our laws are far more moral than those found in the bible. We do not put homos, adulterers or kids who talk back to their parents, to death, as the bible very clearly recommends.
4. Gods are highly irresponsible:
A. You are walking down the sidewalk of a busy road. You see a two year old child coming towards you. As he gets closer to you, he darts out into the road, into oncoming traffic. Morally, is it 'right' for you to let the child be? Or is it morally right for you to grab the child, pull him out of oncoming traffic and put the child back on the sidewalk, in order to prevent harm to the child from the traffic?
B. You are God. A tsunami is headed toward Indonesia. Over 200,000 people will die if the tsunami hits the coast of Indonesia. Is it morally 'right' for you to let the 200,000 people be? Or is it morally right for you to alter the course of the tsunami, such that it hits a coast where no or fewer people will die?
Everyone agrees in situation A above that the right thing to do is save the one child. Believers of invisible sky daddies make excuses as to why their god will not lift so much as a finger to save the 200,000 people on the coast of Indonesia. All manner of justifications as to why gods do nothing in such a case are offered. So when it comes down to it, I have only two options to believe with respect to situation B above:
1. Either gods do not exist, which is precisely why 200,000 die on the Indonesian coast when a tsunami hits.
2. Or gods are held to a LOWER moral standard than are humans. Humans are EXPECTED to rescue a single child from traffic, whereas gods are not. How sad gods lack the will to care enough about humanity to prevent 200,000 deaths. Sadder still that anyone would worship such a horrid creature. If a god won't lift a finger to save human life, what reason do I have to interact with such a creature?

reply from: BossMomma

The phrase I invented has nothing to do with Star Trek. The Trekkies would shun me.
Trekkies, for all their weirdness, don't believe that James T. Kirk and the starship Enterprise are real.
If you were honest, you would have admitted that it wouldn't take terribly long for me to be locked up if I told everyone my life was made better by intelligent gaseous aliens from the future living on a planet with a stupid name.
I was being sarcastic, your example was too ridiculous to warrent a serious answer. The fact is is that how or why we are here has yet to be proven, evolution and creationalism are both still theories.

reply from: BossMomma

1. Because when one's house is destroyed in a hurricane and that person thanks a god that they are alive, they come across as quite childish and stupid, given they make no mention of the fact their god allowed their house to be destroyed. How can their god be responsible for saving their lives, but not be responsible for destroying their house?
2. Many seem to think belief in an invisible sky daddy grants them moral superiority. Belief in imaginary beings does not grant moral superiority.
3. Many seem to think belief in an invisible sky daddy grants them the right to shove those beliefs onto the taxpayers, by means of government and law, like say in banning abortion. Sorry, but one's belief in invisible sky daddies has nothing AT ALL to do with our laws, which is why our laws are far more moral than those found in the bible. We do not put homos, adulterers or kids who talk back to their parents, to death, as the bible very clearly recommends.
4. Gods are highly irresponsible:
A. You are walking down the sidewalk of a busy road. You see a two year old child coming towards you. As he gets closer to you, he darts out into the road, into oncoming traffic. Morally, is it 'right' for you to let the child be? Or is it morally right for you to grab the child, pull him out of oncoming traffic and put the child back on the sidewalk, in order to prevent harm to the child from the traffic?
B. You are God. A tsunami is headed toward Indonesia. Over 200,000 people will die if the tsunami hits the coast of Indonesia. Is it morally 'right' for you to let the 200,000 people be? Or is it morally right for you to alter the course of the tsunami, such that it hits a coast where no or fewer people will die?
Everyone agrees in situation A above that the right thing to do is save the one child. Believers of invisible sky daddies make excuses as to why their god will not lift so much as a finger to save the 200,000 people on the coast of Indonesia. All manner of justifications as to why gods do nothing in such a case are offered. So when it comes down to it, I have only two options to believe with respect to situation B above:
1. Either gods do not exist, which is precisely why 200,000 die on the Indonesian coast when a tsunami hits.
2. Or gods are held to a LOWER moral standard than are humans. Humans are EXPECTED to rescue a single child from traffic, whereas gods are not. How sad gods lack the will to care enough about humanity to prevent 200,000 deaths. Sadder still that anyone would worship such a horrid creature. If a god won't lift a finger to save human life, what reason do I have to interact with such a creature?
Gods and Goddesses are unproven, as are their responsibilities to us. But if someone takes peace and solace in their faith in should be their right as we have a constitutional right to freedom of religion. If you do not subscribe to religion that is also your right, why not allow people to enjoy their rights?

reply from: fetalisa

BZZT! WRONG! Evolution is FACT and theory, no different than gravity or relativity and just as well proven. Creationism is HYPOTHESIS, being neither FACT nor THEORY, but only because creationism lacks evidence to graduate to theory and fact.
One need look no further than diseases such as TB, of which some strains are resistant to our medications. Why are these strains resistant? These strains have EVOLVED resistance to our medications. Likewise, evolution is easily demonstrated in any lab in the world.

reply from: fetalisa

As are the Tooth Fairy, Santa and Bugs Bunny.
I do not argue against freedom of religion. It is found in the Constitution, the same place wherein abortion rights are protected, so why would I be against it?
Because when one's pet religious fantasy is that a day old zygote is a person and we should therefore ban abortion based on this hair-brained pet religious fantasy, one is then wishing to STEP ALL OVER THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF OTHERS.
Really, it's quite simple to understand.

reply from: carolemarie

We have the theory of evolution, and the theory of creationism. Neither is fact, both are theories.

reply from: fetalisa

BZZT! WRONG!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact, whereas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism, as in unproven. And yes, this is the same http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html And yes, http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

reply from: carolemarie

Don't confuse micro evolution (what we can do in a lab) with macro evolution which is not proved at all. The theory of evolution is MACRO evolution which is very problmatic. It certain is not proven at all.
However neither macro evolution or intelligent design can be proven. You just have faith in macro evolution and I don't have that much faith. Intelligent design is more logical. The math doesn't work for MACRO evolution.

reply from: fetalisa

OOPS! Not only have you royally screwed up on this claim, you reveal your ignorance on the topic to all who read here. There is no difference between microevolution and macroevolution and once you admit to one you also admit to the other. (HINT: there is no space between the words 'macro' and 'micro' when placed before the word 'evolution.' If you can't even spell it correctly, people will tend to think you've not a clue of what you speak! Just trying to help!)
You just admitted macroevolution is proven, in your acceptance of microevolution. You can't have one without the other. I have already posted a link which demonstrates evolution in the lab. Intelligent design is not proven because for some reason, no one wishes to present evidence that it occurs. Whereas with evolution, it is the underlying foundation of biology, paleontolgy, archeology, genetics and a host of other sciences. You don't find 'unproven' scientific theories underlying a range of sciences, such as biology, genetics, paleontology, archeology, etc. Only proven sciences, which evolution is both fact and theory, no different than gravity.
Macroevolution is no different than microevolution. Both are proven. Both are fact, which is precisely why you have yet to refute any of the links I have previously posted to back up my own claims.
I assure you, when Darwin predicted in the early 1800s that chimps and humans are closely related, he had no way of knowing with the advent of genetics in the early 1950s, well over 100 years later, genetics would indeed demonstrate that human and chimp DNA would differ by only 2.5%. This is precisely the method by which theory becomes fact, in that the theory, as a predictive model established in the early 1800s, was indeed confirmed by the entirely new science of genetics in the 1950s.
Then why isn't intelligent design underlying the sciences of biology, genetics, paleontology, archeology and a host of other sciences, while evolution IS? On what basis can you possibly claim ID is more 'logical' then evolution, when Darwin's prediction of the close relation between humans and chimps in the early 1800s was indeed proven fact with the advent of genetics in the 1950s? If ID is so logical, why has there never in history been a case where ID has served as a predictive model whose basis was proven well over a century later?
OH REALLY? In what way does math play into evolution and specifically, in what way does this math of which you speak NOT work for macroevolution and in what way does this math prove or disprove Darwin's prediction of the close relation between humans and chimps in the early 1800s, which was then confirmed well over a century later by genetics, which demonstrated chimp and human DNA differ by only 2.5%? Inquiring minds want to know.
You know, you do not have to give up your belief in an invisible sky daddy in order to accept evolution. There are many Christians who accept evolution as the intelligently designed means by which deity creates new species. It makes far more sense that god would set up a self-correct and self-creating system to create new species, rather than have to micromanage the creation of each new species.

reply from: BossMomma

BZZT! WRONG!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact, whereas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism, as in unproven. And yes, this is the same http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html And yes, http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html
Evolution, while probable is still not a full blown fact.

reply from: BossMomma

As are the Tooth Fairy, Santa and Bugs Bunny.
I do not argue against freedom of religion. It is found in the Constitution, the same place wherein abortion rights are protected, so why would I be against it?
Because when one's pet religious fantasy is that a day old zygote is a person and we should therefore ban abortion based on this hair-brained pet religious fantasy, one is then wishing to STEP ALL OVER THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF OTHERS.
Really, it's quite simple to understand.
No ones religion is keeping you from having a suction catheter shoved between your legs every three months to kill an unborn child if you so choose. No one's religion is keeping you from taking RU486, no one is keeping you from doing anything you want with your unborn child, people disagree with you, they have that right.
My pro-life views have nothing to do with religion, politics or anything other than the fact that an unborn child is a child in utero and out. Abortion is a permenant fix to a temporary inconvenience, much like drinking or drugging to hide from ones problems. Furthermore abortion is not a constitutional right, no where in our constitution does it state that you have a right to an abortion.

reply from: carolemarie

Micro evolution is what we see in dog breeding, small changes in a species.
Macro evolution is entire species changing into another one. We don't see that and have no proof of it. Micro evolution is not proof of macro evolution. No one disputes that there are changes within a species.
Darwin's famous statement that "life began as a
simple' cell" is laughable. As recently as 50 years ago, Wells, Huxley, and Wells wrote in their classic textbook that "nothing can be seen inside the nucleus but clear fluid." We know now that the cell, is an extremely complex unit, with billions of nucleotides in the gene material inside the nucleus, and millions of biochemical reactions. The probability laws tell us that the probability of the haphazard creation of the exacting sequences of nucleotides into DNA is Zero, many times over. We are not talking about 84 nucleotides (cubes); we are talking about billions of nucleotides that must be arranged in a specific sequence.
Some evolutionists have stated that the human gene and the monkey's gene are 90% similar. However, even if the similarity was 99%, we are still talking about 300,000,000 nucleotides that must be haphazardly re-arranged to change the monkey into a human. The probability laws preclude this as an utter impossibility. The human gene contains 30,000,000,000 nucleotides; 1% of that is 300,000,000.
Biochemistry has shown that previous assumptions, such as the cell being simple unit are wrong. The laws of probability cause other problems in the THEORY of evolution.
Since evolution can't be proven scientifically you are using faith to believe in it.
Since intelligent design can't be proven scientifcally, I use faith to believe in it.
Both are faith based responses to data.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

But doesn't micro evolution lend credibility to macro evolution? The universe is a big place, with billions of stars and trillions of planets (probably more, I'm being conservative here). With all of those planets, the chances of life forming are actually quite good.

reply from: carolemarie

Biochemistry shows that it is very very complicated and mathamatically impossible for large (macro) changes to happen. We don't have one documented instance. We can't even explain how the blood clotting system could possibly evolve....
The Blood Clotting Cascade
1. A cut occurs and Hageman Factor sticks to the surface of cells near the wound. Bound Hageman Factor reacts with another enzyme called HMK to produce Activated Hageman.
2. Pre Kallikrein reacts with Activated Hageman to produce Kallikrein.
3. Hageman Factor also reacts with HMK and Kallikrein to form Activated Hageman.
4. PTA reacts with Activated Hageman and HMK to produce Activated PTA.
5. Christmas Factor reacts with Activated PTA and Convertin to produce Activated Christmas Factor.
6. Antihemophilic Factor is activated by Thrombin to produce Activated Antihemophilic Factor.
7. Stuart Factor reacts with Activated Christmas Factor and Activated Antihemophilic Factor to produce Activated Stuart Factor.
8. Proconvertin is activated by Activated Hageman Factor to produce Convertin.
9. When a cut occurs, Tissue Factor (which is only found outside of cells) is brought in near the wound where it reacts with Convertin and Stuart Factor to produce Activated Stuart Factor. (Note that step 9 involves an extrinsic process whereas step 7 is an intrinsic process.)
10. Proaccelerin is activated by Thrombin to produce Accelerin.
11a. GLU-Prothrombin reacts with Prothrombin Enzyme and Vitamin K to produce GLA-Prothrombin. (Note that Prothrombin cannot be activated in the GLU form so it must be formed into the GLA form. In this process ten amino acids must be changed from glutamate to gama carboxy glutamate.)
11b. GLS-Prothrombin is then able to bind to Calcium. This allows GLA-Prothrombin to stick to surfaces of cells. Only intact modified Calcium-Prothrombin Complex can bind to the cell membrane and be cleaved by Activated Stuart and Accerlerin to produce Thrombin.
12. Prothrombin-Ca (bound to cell surface) is activated by Activated Stuart to produce Thrombin.
13.Prothrombin also reacts with Activated Stuart and Accelerin to produce Thrombin. (Step 13 is much faster than step 12.)
14. Fibrinogin is activated by Thrombin to produce Fibrin. Threads of Fibrin are the final clot. However, it would be more effective if the Fibrin threads could form more cross links with each other.
15. FSF (Fibrin Stabilizing Factor) is activated by Thrombin to form Activated FSF.
16. When Fibrin reacts with Activated FSF many more cross ties are made with other Fibrin filaments to form a more effective clot.
Blood clotting is not an invention of man. It is the invention of either God or "Mother Nature" (i.e., it invented itself). Regardless of how you believe the clotting cascade came to be, the fact remains that blood clotting is a clear example of irreducible complexity.
Let us next consider that this irreducibly complex system of blood clotting must have a way to remove the clot once the wound has healed. How is this done?
17a. A blood protein, Plasminogin is activated by + - Pa to produce Plasmin. This acts like tiny chemical scissors which cuts up the Fibrin filaments of the clot.
17b. The rate at which the clot is broken up is controlled by yet another blood protein named Alpha 2 Antiplasm, which in turn inactivates Plasmin. One of the most important parts of this whole blood clotting machine is the ability it has to keep the clotting localized to the area of the wound and to stop the clotting cascade. What is the biggest killer of human beings? That's right, blood clots. Most heart attacks and strokes are caused by blood clots lodging. I
18. Antithrombin inactivates Activated Christmas, Activated Stuart and Thrombin.
19. Protein C is activated by Thrombin to produce Activated Protein C.
20. Activated Protein C inactivates Accelerin and Activated Antihemophilic.
21. Finally, Thrombomodulin which lines the inside of your blood vessels prevents Thrombin from activating Fibrinogin.
Darwinian evolution only works if there is something to select--something that is useful right now, not in the future.
It does go against reason to "believe" that natural, pure chance changes in DNA (mutations) are capable of producing a process that is so irreducibly complex such as "simple" blood clotting.
If a Darwinian type of evolution (punctuated equilibrium included), invented blood clotting, physical precursors to each step were required. Each step had to actually work in order for natural selection to have any positive effects. If any organism is to thrive, all of its parts must at least be minimally functional.
An animal that is missing even one of the sixteen steps to a functional clot will not survive. If it does not survive it cannot contribute its genes to the gene pool to be selected from, no matter how much they are needed.
So in answer to all the planets and stars, it is actually more reasonable to believe in intelligent design than evolution.
A really interesting book is Behe's Black Box.
Biochemistry is facinating and really interesting.

reply from: fetalisa

Utter falsehood. Macroevolution and microevolution describe the exact same process. Your argument is no different than saying dining is not eating. Additionally, the fossil record, although not complete, is extensive AND consistent, no matter where in the world we dig.
Then dining is not eating.
The above claim is utterly false. Evolution does not address the origins of life.
You do not have the first clue of what you speak, in that you have revealed your ignorance on this issue in totality, in claiming that evolution addresses the origins of life. That's exactly why you offer no proof whatsoever for your claims above. Do you think yourself god such that whatever you say we must believe? Where is the proof for the paragraph of nonsense written above?
It is well established fact that chimp and human DNA differ by only 2.5%.
Proof?
Proof?
Proof?
The nonsensical blather you have posted here does nothing at all to refute the FACTS in the links I have already posted. I notice you have not posted any sources whatsoever to back up so much as one word of the nonsensical blather in what you have posted here.
You have not refuted evolution. You do not even offer to back up the nonsensical claims you offer and reveal your ignorance to all who post here by insisting Darwin's work was concerned with the origins of life. Evolution does not now, nor has it ever, concerned itself with the origins of life. You've not so much as clue of what you speak, which is exactly why you offer no sources to back up so much as one word of you have posted here.

reply from: fetalisa

They are one and the same. Carolmarie's argument is the equivalent of saying dining is not eating. Once you accept microevolution, you have accepted macroevolution and vice versa. You can't have one without the other. But she obviously knows not of what she speaks, which is why she thinks evolution concerns itself with the origins of life. It doesn't and never has, thus revealing the depths of her own ignorance of evolution to all.

reply from: fetalisa

Utter falsehood. Macroevolution and microevolution describe the exact same process. Your argument is no different than saying dining is not eating. Additionally, the fossil record, although not complete, is extensive AND consistent, no matter where in the world we dig.
Then dining is not eating.
The above claim is utterly false. Evolution does not address the origins of life.
You do not have the first clue of what you speak, in that you have revealed your ignorance on this issue in totality, in claiming that evolution addresses the origins of life. That's exactly why you offer no proof whatsoever for your claims above. Do you think yourself god such that whatever you say we must believe? Where is the proof for the paragraph of nonsense written above?
It is well established fact that chimp and human DNA differ by only 2.5%.
Proof?
Proof?
Proof?
The nonsensical blather you have posted here does nothing at all to refute the FACTS in the links I have already posted. I notice you have not posted any sources whatsoever to back up so much as one word of the nonsensical blather in what you have posted here.
You have not refuted evolution. You do not even offer to back up the nonsensical claims you offer and reveal your ignorance to all who post here by insisting Darwin's work was concerned with the origins of life. Evolution does not now, nor has it ever, concerned itself with the origins of life. You've not so much as clue of what you speak, which is exactly why you offer no sources to back up so much as one word of you have posted here.

reply from: CharlesD

Here's my take, and I know which people will disagree with me and which ones won't. I don't have a problem with subtle changes over time. How many different dogs do we have in the world today? Who's to say we didn't start out with one basic dog and the other ones developed form that one over time? Like there was a dog template if you will. The same with cats. Start out with a cat template and a few million years later you have leopards, cheetahs, lions, etc. How about horses? You started out with one horse and now we have all manner of horse looking things, including zebras.
What I can't accept is that a species can just change into an altogether different species. All the fossil record really does is show us what was alive at what times, kind of like a timeline for what creatures inhabited the earth during different periods. The fossils don't tell us how they came about. You see certain fossils of creatures that were around at a particular time, and then you see another layer of fossils that are of creatures that were around at a later period. All we can really gather from that is which creatures lived at what time, not that creature A evolved into creature B. What I don't get is why we have certain animals alive today that have been around almost unchanged for millions of years, like crocodiles and alligators. Some of the larger lizards like the Komodo Dragon date back pretty far as well. You would think they would have evolved into something else by now.

reply from: fetalisa

Like the numerous breeds of dogs and cats developed (with many that we ourselves have bred) over the last 500 years?
Hmm, so changes are possible over a 500 year time line, but over a millions of years time line, we would have LESS speciation, rather than MORE? Is that your argument? This is like saying you accept investing $200 per month with a 10% return for 10 years will leave you with $40,000, but you can't accept the fact that $200 per month invested with a 10% return over 100 years will leave you with upwards of $350,000. Is it really that difficult to accept the fact that numerous subtle changes over longer periods of times will leave you with exponential changes?
We already know the how, which is evolution. If you see evolution EVERYWHERE YOU LOOK and you reproduce evolution in the lab at will and we know diseases like TB and MSRA have EVOLVED resistance to our medications and even you freely admit the truth of subtle changes over time, why would you then say the fossils don't tell us how they came about? Do you think evolution is occurring now, but wasn't occurring millions of years ago? Why do we not find horse fossils in the same geologic layers in which we find trilobites? What might that tell you?
What, exactly, do you think transitional fossils are?
Why would you think that? Or to put it another way, what part of the fact and theory of evolution states that evolutionary changes will be constant for all species at all times, if that is what you are suggesting?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

What people tend to forget is the incredible amount of TIME that has passed on Earth. We think 100,000 years is a long time. Well, it's not. The dinosaurs were on this planet for so much longer than humans it's almost silly. The proof is in the bones, in the tests we have done.You can't prove the Earth is round either, unless you've been up there. Can you prove the sun is actually billions of miles away? Not really; you could say it's just small and close and that all of our measurements are wrong for whatever reason. What I find really laughable is people who try to say our dating techniques are wrong. They're just looking for any excuse.
If you consider the ridiculous amount of TIME involved, it really doesn't seem that unlikely at all. And you also have to remember that everything happened in steps. So that complcated amino process for clotting is SO complicated because it has been evolving basically since life began. Our planet has had life on it for 3500 MILLION years. I'm not even sure how to expand that figure to show you all of the zeros. 3,500,000,000 I think is correct - Yes I realise that's three BILLION, but when you say "fifteen hundred" (15 hundred) you're actually talking about one thousand and five hundred, 1,500. Regardless, HUMANS have ONLY been alive for 1 million years (average). That's a teensy weensy fraction.
Think about how fast bacteria DO evolve in "miro" evolution. Now give them 3,500,000,000 years. Doesn't seem so preposterous now does it? Sure, you only have a tiny chance of winning the lottery. But if you bought a BILLION tickets, your chances would be a lot higher don't you see?

reply from: carolemarie

You do realize that Charles Darwins book was called the Origin of the Species by means of natural selection? That the whole premise of evolution is that is how our species evolved?
The Science Of Life by Julian S Huxley, G P Wells and H G Wells is the textbook I was refering to...it is a classic

reply from: fetalisa

Exactly! It isn't titled "On the Origins of Life," is it? Do you realize the depths of your own ignorance you have revealed to all who read here, in that you do not even understand what the very title of Darwin's work means? Usually in these cases, I chide those who make this mistake by telling them if they had bothered to read the title of Darwin's work, they would have known evolution addresses speciation. I can not do that in your case, since you DID read the title and somehow concluded that speciation had something to do with the origins of life. It doesn't.
Evolution discusses speciation, not the origins of life, which is why his work was titled "On The Origins of Species," instead of "On the Origins of Life."
It should be quite clear why none here should listen to so much as a word you have to say about evolution, since you do not even know what evolution addresses. Origin of life is covered by abiogenesis, not evolution and never the twain shall meet:
Abiogenesis = origins of life/how life began
Evolution = how life changes once it had began
As far as Huxley, he was a proponent of evolution:
"In the early 20th century he was one of the minority of biologists[19] who believed that natural selection was the main driving force of evolution, and that evolution occurred by small steps and not by saltation (jumps). These opinions are now standard.[20] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Huxley#Evolution
Why would you quote an author who not only supported evolution, but also made his mark in history by revising the standard of acceptance of natural selection? My dear, don't you understand the author you have cited supports MY case and NOT YOURS?

reply from: fetalisa

Deleted - posting error

reply from: CharlesD

If you're simply talking about changes over time, most people don't have a problem with that, but my main issue is the idea that all life springs from some common ancestor that just came about through purely naturalistic processes. If you say that the earth is 3.6 billion years old and the universe roughly 13 billion years old, give or take a couple million years here or there, you still have a beginning point. There was a point where there wasn't, and then a point where there was. How do you explain causation? How is the idea that there could have been a causal agent against science? At the basic level, the goal of science is to tell the what or the how and the goal of religion is to identify the who. The two don't necessarily have to be mutually exclusive. I'm not even talking about young earth everything is only 6000 years old Creationism here,(which I don't support) but just the basic idea that causation needs to be an open debate where all possible views can be given equal representation. That is intellectually honest. Throw all the ideas out on the table, have a good spirited debate, and let's hash it out. Even Richard Dawkins, famed atheist that he is, when pressed on the issue of original causation admitted that he just didn't know but that there could be the possibility of a designer's signature present in biological systems. He then said that we can't know who or what that designer could be but people should be free to debate that issue. That's quite a concession coming from him.

reply from: carolemarie

Maybe you should read what I post, not what you assume.
I was simply stating that an evolutionist thought that all there was to the cell was clear liquid. With more information, that idea becomes laughable.
Bio-chemistry is rather like opening the hood and actually looking at what drives the engine....and natural selection can't account for all the pieces being there at one time just to make blood clot. It is a lot more complicated and complex and requires a lot of faith to believe it just happen. I don't have that kind of blind faith, so I resort to reason, which is why I put my faith in the idea of design.
I don't know what makes you assume I didn't read Darwins book. I did and it was a great piece of work for his day and time.

reply from: CharlesD

For it's time, but science has come a long way since then.

reply from: fetalisa

You really need to make up your mind:
??????????????????????????
You must enjoy changing the goalposts. First you said your issue was you couldn't accept that one species can change into another. After I address that, you next come up with the above. It is almost as if you really do not want to believe it, instead of following where the evidence leads.
That I don't know. It doesn't appear to be a settled issue with the scientists either.
Who said it was? The entire point of abiogenesis is to uncover the causal agents.
The point of religion is to assume the who exists and assume the who, which is the opposite of how science works. "GODIDIT" is never a scientific answer, but such an answer doesn't increase our knowledge anyway. Why study anything if GODIDIT?
That's because religious beliefs change based on new scientific discoveries. Religions no longer believe the earth is the center of the universe, although they once did. Heliocentrism FORCED the religions to change in order to stay relevant/believable. How many religions would survive today if they taught the earth was flat? As time goes on, I fully expect theistic evolution to replace creationism, as an example.
I am not quite sure what you are saying here. Are you suggesting science be open to deity as causation? I don't ever see that happening, since it is anti-science and every process we study proves to have naturalistic explanations, not supernatural explanation. One need look no further than lightening, once thought to be Thor hurling thunderbolts from the sky. Now we know the cause of lightening and it isn't Thor.
That's exactly what science does.
Do you have a source for this? I find it hard to believe.
I can't imagine an atheist giving any serious credence to a designer. Again, do you have a source for this?

reply from: CharlesD

I said that I take issue with the common ancestor idea. I didn't change my mind there.
In an interview with Ben Stein of all people. Stein did a documentary about Intelligent Design and he interviewed people on both sides. The portion with Dawkins was actually pretty fascinating. Dawkins said that he found the idea of God preposterous, but left the idea of a designer up in the air. He speculated that the designer could be a higher civilization that designed life on this planet, but then said that he honestly didn't know how life began but that the issue is up for debate.

reply from: fetalisa

I did read what you posted. It is clear you were mistaken in thinking speciation had anything at all to do with the origins of life.
There is no such thing as an evolutionist.
How is this an argument against evolution? And how does that contradict science? It is normal in science for disproven ideas to be displaced as new information comes to light. Your problem in trying to use this against evolution, is as time has continued since Darwin's day, the evidence in favor of evolution has become an overwhelming mountain. At this point in time, fact and theory of evolution is as likely to be displaced as the fact and theory of gravity is.
You are simply using a gap in our present knowledge as an attempt to somehow discredit evolution:
"The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions, but it is unclear how this occurred.[151]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Just because we aren't clear in one area, does not discount the remaining overwhelming mountain of evidence in favor of evolution. Genetics still confirmed Darwin's prediction that chimps and humans were closely related, even though we may still have gaps in our knowledge in both evolution and genetics. The gaps do not invalidate what we do know.
Exactly how does observing evolution in the lab require 'faith,' especially in experiments that study generations to the 31,500th generation?
"A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.
Twenty years ago, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing, US, took a single Escherichia coli bacterium and used its descendants to found 12 laboratory populations.
The 12 have been growing ever since, gradually accumulating mutations and evolving for more than 44,000 generations, while Lenski watches what happens.
But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations - the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.
"It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski.
The replays showed that even when he looked at trillions of cells, only the original population re-evolved Cit+ - and only when he started the replay from generation 20,000 or greater. Something, he concluded, must have happened around generation 20,000 that laid the groundwork for Cit+ to later evolve"http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html
Do you need faith to know that helium weighs less than air, as you see, with your own eyes, a helium filled balloon rise in the air? Do we need faith to believe in evolution, when we observe new traits evolve in the lab, and can replay the evolution of that trait, even to the point of observing with our own eyes, the trait evolve again in the 20,000th generation? Your notion that faith is required for things we witness with our own eyes is patently absurd and has nothing at all to do with reason.
Which you can not observe with your own eyes as we can with evolution.
How could you have read it when you believed it covered the origins of life?

reply from: carolemarie

I still can't understand how you can look at the blood clotting system and with a straight face tell me it evolved. That is not a logical position at all. It is impossible mathamatically for it to have just happened.
It is incredibly complex and beautiful in how it works and to believe it "just happen dude" requires more faith than I have....

reply from: fetalisa

Then please explain why diseases such as TB and MSRA have strains that do not respond to treatment, when such treatments used to work but no longer do? Why would your god 'design' these diseases to no longer respond to medications? Is it to kill us, because it would certainly appear that way.

reply from: CharlesD

You didn't hear about the tornado that blew through a junkyard and assembled a 747? Probably better odds.

reply from: carolemarie

That is micro evolution at work and we already have established that is a given and not disputed. Any population of organisms, bacteria included, naturally includes variants with unusual traits--in this case, the ability to withstand an antibiotic's attack on a microbe. When a person takes an antibiotic, the drug kills the defenseless bacteria, leaving behind--or "selecting," in biological terms--those that can resist it. These renegade bacteria then multiply, increasing their numbers a millionfold in a day, becoming the predominant microorganism. Antibiotic resistance results from gene action, the most frightening one is resistance acquired from a circle of DNA called plasmid that can flit from one type of bacterium to another.
(Macro evolution is what I can't swallow)

reply from: fetalisa

You didn't hear about the tornado that blew through a junkyard and assembled a 747? Probably better odds.
carolmarie and CharlesD:
Isn't argument from incredulity a logical fallacy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance As long as we are clear on our positions:
"The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true, or alternatively that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead."
(And really CharlesD, on the one hand, you say you have no issues with subtle changes over time, then you contradict yourself by comparing evolution to a tornado blowing through a junkyard and assembling a 747? What part of the theory of evolution states anything like that is possible? Quotes and authors will be greatly appreciated! Extra credit for links!)

reply from: carolemarie

I just look at the order, the precision and the amazing amount of sheer mind-blowing things that would have to randomly appear and I tell you, I just don't have enough faith to believe that. I have to go for the rational out of God, it is more believable that God made it than it just happen.

reply from: BossMomma

Then please explain why diseases such as TB and MSRA have strains that do not respond to treatment, when such treatments used to work but no longer do? Why would your god 'design' these diseases to no longer respond to medications? Is it to kill us, because it would certainly appear that way.
The viruses mutated and became stronger, but the original strain existed first, how did it get here?

reply from: nancyu

I don't believe that's His plan for you.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13217944.500-the-first-gene-on-earth-how-did-life-begin-revolutionarydiscoveries-about-the-genetic-material-rna-are-helping-molecular-biologiststo-piece-together-replicas-of-the-first-genes.html

reply from: carolemarie

This is just another theory, there is no way to prove it. Might as well say God did it.
It is just that some people are so opposed to the idea of God that they will accept anything in order to avoid that.

reply from: Nulono

Do not love the unborn carnally!
Well, to each his/her own, live and let live, etc....
but don't PHYSICALLY love the unborn!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Hum, *squish!*. I don't think that would work out so well. What would that be classified as; prepaedophelia?

reply from: fetalisa

Then you agree the virus evolved.
So if science doesn't have a definitive answer to that question, do we then ASSUME the only answer possible is 'GODIDIT?' What little we would know of the world if you foolishly jumped to that assumption.

reply from: Nulono

The tornado analogy forgets basic forces that affect an otcome. What's the probability of sperically planets being randomly assembled? Pretty much zero. But it's not random. Gravity controls it.
Same thing with snowflakes. H2O bonds like that. There are no faries with icecubes and chisels with little factories in the clouds.

reply from: fetalisa

That's one way I can determine when those ignorant of evolution are speaking about it. The ignorant always assume evolution is 100% random. It's not. Mutations are random, but the environment is deterministic.

reply from: fetalisa

Well they might be taken seriously if they had something other than a story of a talking serpent as evidence of the 'truth' of their position. Oddest of all, however, is the creationist complaint that creationism/ID isn't given equal time. How can it ever be given equal time if no evidence (outside of a talking serpent) is ever presented to scientific journals for review? I mean, if the creationists don't do the work science requires, how can they expect science to take it seriously? Instead, they wish to sneak it into science classrooms through the backdoor.

reply from: Nulono

That, aside from it's ridiculousness, is a big problem I have with it.

reply from: joe

Then you agree the virus evolved.
This is evolution??? Wow, with unmeasurable amount of faith someone might just believe this "proof" concludes evolution is "real". Give me a break.

reply from: joe

Wow, a monkey just evolved and started typing. Impressive.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Joe, don't be an idiot. You know that's not how it is even theorized to work.

reply from: joe

Like I said many times before, I respect your faith.

reply from: joe

Second evolution in one night!!!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I'm on about a 2 second fuse tonight, and fetalisa is already on ignore. Witness is close, and so are you. Why don't you just IGNORE Vexer, since she was BANNED anyway?

reply from: joe

He's been watching too much Pokemon.
What would you expect from someone with his apparent IQ?
Insulting someone who does not believe in your faith??? Lame.

reply from: fetalisa

How is faith necessary http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html
"Faith" is belief for no reason whatsoever, whereas certain FACTS are easily observed in the lab via DIRECT OBSERVATION. There's a difference.

reply from: fetalisa

I call it the VanCome Lady Syndrome. Post enough evidence that contradicts their willfull ignorance and they stick their fingers in their ears and say "LALALALALALA," only on internet forums it is done with the ignore feature.

reply from: joe

You are more annoying than the Jehovah Witnesses knocking at the door (though I do respect their mission).

reply from: fetalisa

I know. I post FACTS rather than BS arguments pulled from my behind. It annoys many here whenever the truth is spread.

reply from: BossMomma

Then you agree the virus evolved.
This is evolution??? Wow, with unmeasurable amount of faith someone might just believe this "proof" concludes evolution is "real". Give me a break.
I believe in MicroEvolution, but to an extent I believe in creationalism as well. A thing may evolve, but the original was there first, how did it get there?

reply from: BossMomma

That's right, ignoring problems makes them go away.
You keep on believing that honey.
Well she could take the pro-choice route and kill her inconveniences.

reply from: fetalisa

HA! As if it is my fault evolution is directly observable in the lab.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

That's right, ignoring problems makes them go away.
You keep on believing that honey.
Well she could take the pro-choice route and kill her inconveniences.
Except that I've never been pregnant and would never consider killing my own child.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

There are many theories that don't involve God. They all use scientific data to prove themselves instead of assuming "just because we don't know, God must have done it."
http://library.thinkquest.org/26118/origin_formation_life.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021204080856.htm

By the way, what do you think about any evolutionary paths discovered for any animals on earth? The dinosaurs evolved from earlier animals, birds evolved from dinosaurs... or do you really think God plopped down a completely new animal every time our fossil records show a new distinct species?

reply from: Nulono

Abiogenisis is an entirely separate topic, and we don't yet have all the answers.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

It's a theory on how life began on our planet, so it's not totally different at all.

reply from: Nulono

It's supported by evidence, though. Not just some ancient book.

reply from: BossMomma

There are many theories that don't involve God. They all use scientific data to prove themselves instead of assuming "just because we don't know, God must have done it."
http://library.thinkquest.org/26118/origin_formation_life.htm
">http://library.thinkquest.org/...mation_life.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021204080856.htm
">http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...21204080856.htm
By the way, what do you think about any evolutionary paths discovered for any animals on earth? The dinosaurs evolved from earlier animals, birds evolved from dinosaurs... or do you really think God plopped down a completely new animal every time our fossil records show a new distinct species?
I'm an agnostic, I'm really not sure which to believe and am not really worried about which is true or not. You're supposedly a christian yet go counter to your own religious teachings just as you're supposedly pro-life but then celebrate voting in an extreme pro-choice president.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Being pro-life does not define my entire existence, so why the hell would I vote solely on that issue?

reply from: BossMomma

I love it!
The gutless fence-sitter finger-pointing at the Christian!
At least Liberal HAS a belief.
I'm not a fence sitter and have shown way more balls than you thanks much.

reply from: BossMomma

I'm just pointing out that you run rather counter to your claims.

reply from: BossMomma

Oh? Tell us what makes you more 'ballsy' than me.
I'm very interested to know.
You look a serial killer in the eye and make him mind without batting a lash and I'll maybe put you on the same level of courage. You know nothing about me, yet claim your some big shyte because you survived boot camp.

reply from: lukesmom

I know. I post FACTS rather than BS arguments pulled from my behind. It annoys many here whenever the truth is spread.
No, you post OPINIONS you call facts and can't back up. You aren't important enough here to actually be annoying. Good try though.

reply from: fetalisa

It is FACT embryos are PROPERTY!
http://www.divorce-lawyer-source.com/news/ivf-embryo-destruction.html
It is FACT the unborn aren't persons in an HOV lane:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/12/earlyshow/main1203514.shtml
Candace Wilkinson, of Phoenix, claimed her fetus should count as the second "person" in the car with her in the lane reserved for carpoolers.
It is FACT the unborn aren't persons:
http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/1075082 Alexander v. Whitman
Perhaps you should address this to the person who made the claim?

reply from: yoda

Hmmmm....... maybe because that ONE issue is a matter of LIFE AND DEATH for a million or so unborn babies in this country EVERY YEAR???
Maybe the lives of a million babies doesn't really matter enough to influence your vote, eh? Is that it?

reply from: JRH

Hmmmm....... maybe because that ONE issue is a matter of LIFE AND DEATH for a million or so unborn babies in this country EVERY YEAR???
Maybe the lives of a million babies doesn't really matter enough to influence your vote, eh? Is that it?
Babies are born. Non person clumps of cells are aborted.

reply from: yoda

Note to all the proaborts here who are on constant "attack patrol".... I have you on ignore, and will not be reading your posts except perhaps second hand in someone else's post. So, don't think I'm ignoring you, I'm just ignoring you, that's all.

reply from: BossMomma

Hmmmm....... maybe because that ONE issue is a matter of LIFE AND DEATH for a million or so unborn babies in this country EVERY YEAR???
Maybe the lives of a million babies doesn't really matter enough to influence your vote, eh? Is that it?
Babies are born. Non person clumps of cells are aborted.
Babies are babies, not caterpillers. They do not become something else upon emerging from the uterus.

reply from: fetalisa

And why wouldn't clumps of cells be aborted, when it is provable FACT they are property?

reply from: BossMomma

And why wouldn't clumps of cells be aborted, when it is provable FACT they are property?
Why shouldn't your husband get to beat the crap out of you if he has a bad day? Why shouldn't we still get to own Africans? Why does CPS get involved if we abuse our children? Because Women, Africans and, Children are human beings. Child abuse, Spousal abuse and, Slavery were all legal at one point or another, they are seen now as unethical and were outlawed by those who saw it for what it was. Abortion is the slaughter of an innocent human being, thus there are those who see it as unethical.

reply from: Nulono

Legal property. Not actual property.

reply from: Antibigot

And why wouldn't clumps of cells be aborted, when it is provable FACT they are property?
You know PETS are considered property, yet you cannot mistreat them. Why can't you if they're non-person property? I mean, you can damage your own DVD player if you feel like it.

reply from: fetalisa

Because I am a person.
Because they are persons.
Because they are persons.
It is the slaughter or property, as has already been proven.

reply from: fetalisa

I don't know, although I suppose sentience is one reason behind animal abuse laws.
But what does that have to do with unborn property? Even a judge can order it/they killed by thawing:
http://www.divorce-lawyer-source.com/news/ivf-embryo-destruction.html

reply from: BossMomma

Because I am a person.
Because they are persons.
Because they are persons.
It is the slaughter or property, as has already been proven.
Women, Africans and, Children were once property too. Maybe when everyone pulls their heads out of their collective arses and remembers their history they'll see abortion for the injustice it is. My dog is property too, but it is illegal for me to beat her, starve her, otherwise abuse her. Why should a dog get better treatment than a human being?

reply from: fetalisa

Women were not denied rights due to lack of birth. Africans were not denied rights due to lack of birth. Children were not denied rights due to lack of birth. So what possible relevance could any of these examples have to the unborn, who ARE denied rights due to lack of birth?
I know the history. Which period would you care to discuss? Would the 7th century do, where the penance for oral sex was 7 years and the penance for abortion was 120 days? Which period of history interests you with respect to abortion regulation?
There are laws against animal cruelty.
The dog is sentient, whereas the unborn are not. Neither are persons.

reply from: BossMomma

Women were not denied rights due to lack of birth. Africans were not denied rights due to lack of birth. Children were not denied rights due to lack of birth. So what possible relevance could any of these examples have to the unborn, who ARE denied rights due to lack of birth?
I know the history. Which period would you care to discuss? Would the 7th century do, where the penance for oral sex was 7 years and the penance for abortion was 120 days? Which period of history interests you with respect to abortion regulation?
There are laws against animal cruelty.
The dog is sentient, whereas the unborn are not. Neither are persons.
As Liberal kept pointing out, animal sentience is an unproven grey area, just as fetal sentience is.

reply from: fetalisa

How is animal sentience unproven? If an animal gets hit by a car, it's quite obvious the animal is hurt, as you can tell from how it acts. It's no different that a doctor swatting a newborn on the behind. They DO react by crying, which proves the ability to sense or feel exists.
It's not unproven. It occurs around the 28th week of gestation, when brain development makes it possible.

reply from: BossMomma

How is animal sentience unproven? If an animal gets hit by a car, it's quite obvious the animal is hurt, as you can tell from how it acts. It's no different that a doctor swatting a newborn on the behind. They DO react by crying, which proves the ability to sense or feel exists.
It's not unproven. It occurs around the 28th week of gestation, when brain development makes it possible.
Yet the 28 week gestation fetus is a fetus, it is unborn yet you claim the fetus to be non-senient as a weed. Your argument contradicts it'self.

reply from: Antibigot

I don't know, although I suppose sentience is one reason behind animal abuse laws.
But what does that have to do with unborn property? Even a judge can order it/they killed by thawing:
http://www.divorce-lawyer-source.com/news/ivf-embryo-destruction.html
Property is property, isn't it? What does it matter what kind? Why can't you treat ALL property the same? Embryos are alive so why can't you treat all living property the same?

reply from: fetalisa

Hardly. The overwhelming majority of abortions (88-90%) occur by the 12-13th week after the last menstrual cycle, when sentience does not exist. The 28th week is well into the stage of viability.

reply from: fetalisa

No it's not. A car is property. So is a sock, but I can't drive my sock to work. Can you see the difference?

reply from: BossMomma

Hardly. The overwhelming majority of abortions (88-90%) occur by the 12-13th week after the last menstrual cycle, when sentience does not exist.
You did not until now specify that, you stated that the Fetus is non-sentient, not that it gains sentience later on. Now you're back peddling.

reply from: fetalisa

I assume any who argues abortion have educated themselves on the statistics. The fact you didn't educate yourself on the statistics, or are not aware of the fact that week 28 puts the fetus into viability, or are not aware fetal sentience is developed around the 28th week, does not AT ALL mean I am back pedaling. It merely means you haven't done your homework. If you HAD done your homework, you could have called me on it and I would have been more than happy to answer the question at that time. But you didn't do your homework, so you didn't even know to ask.

reply from: BossMomma

I assume any who wishes to argue abortion have educated themselves on the statistics. The fact you didn't educate yourself on the statistics, or are not aware of the fact that week 28 puts the fetus into viability, does not AT ALL mean I am back pedaling.
I know the statistics, however the FOCA will remove state legislature limiting abortion and you support the FOCA by stating that the fetus in nonsentient. So now that you admit that a baby gains sentience in the womb you support the killing of sentient human beings. You're sole justification for denying an unborn child the right to life is based on self awareness and sentience, both of which a fetus is capable of. Your argument is as shallow as it gets, consider yourself whooped and get over it.

reply from: fetalisa

I am asking you nicely not to misrepresent my argument. Lack of sentience, is only one part of it.
You assume what you do not know.
You speak falsehoods. First of all, a 'sole' justification can not be two things. Second of all, if you have proof a fetus possesses self-awareness, you need to present it.
You do not even grasp my argument as is plainly shown above. So anything you say about my argument is erroneous.

reply from: BossMomma

I've proved my point, a baby gains sentience long before birth therefore using sentience to justify abortion has been debunked. I'm more interested in the Pro-life point of view and so have placed pro-choicers on ignore with the exception of RiverMoonLady.

reply from: fetalisa

It's all a game. No one with half of a brain, when discussing generalities of an issue, would be expected to focus on the 10% of the generalities of an issue rather than the 90%.

reply from: fetalisa

How can that be, given sentience does not exist prior to the 28th week?
Join the crowd. You forced birthers get so pissy when you can't refute a logically valid argument.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Hmmmm....... maybe because that ONE issue is a matter of LIFE AND DEATH for a million or so unborn babies in this country EVERY YEAR???
Maybe the lives of a million babies doesn't really matter enough to influence your vote, eh? Is that it?
Pretty much. I believe the lives of everyone overseas fighting a senseless war matter more right now. I believe the millions of born children starving in our country because of greedy capitalist economics matter more. If we add up all the lives I care about, they outnumber the potential number of aborted babies.

reply from: fetalisa

I think I shall decide tomorrow that boogers are persons and nose picking is murder, then be pissed off the rest of my life that the majority in our society does not agree.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics