Arrogant atheist

[manicsloth]

Wow, I started reading a post about an arrogant athiest and get a load of arrogant christians.

Firstly allow me to clarify my position, I am not an athiest, which is to say I do not believe what someone else tells me about god. I have looked at a large amount of evidence and done a lot of thinking to arrive at my own conclusions. I do agree in large with the athiests but my beliefs stem from personal research. Part of my research is in honest and open debate with theists and athiests alike so please understand this post is a form of enquiry not an attack on ideas. I want to hear differing views so I can add to my data. You guys claim to be knowledgeable so here goes...

Scientific process I think we can agree on as follows: Make a hypothesis (theory), formulate events that must be true is the hypothesis is correct, see if any of the predictions occur. Here is a small example for clarity to those of a less scientific disposition; I have a theory that my kettle has it's heating element in the bottom, from this I predict bubbles will start to appear when boiling from the bottom as they must come from the heat source, I watch as it boils and see the bubbles do originate from the bottom so my theory is borne out and I can claim I have evidence to support it.

Let's take a quick look at the theory of evolution, I would just like to hear your views on this information and it's implications. We should all know from biology classes that the human genome is made up of 46 chromosomes which are paired into 23 pairs, Darwin predicts we have common ancestry with modern primates but unfortunately these primates have 24 chromosome pairs, an extra pair. The effect of losing or gaining an entire chromosome pair would be significant and therefore if Darwin is correct it cannot have been lost in our case or gained in that of the primates. This leaves just one other explanation, that 2 chromosome pairs have merged. Genome sequencing has been completed on both humans and the primates in question and the results analysed. The merged pairs have been found and noted. The prediction is borne out and we can say we have evidence for Darwin and if man truly evolved from primates we have evidence against god.

For those of you who want to believe this is mis-information, that the results were faked or any of this then guess what, you can go to university and study genetics then do it yourself. What I am hoping for is peoples reaction to this, how it might affect their belief if enough evidence could be presented from enough reputable sources to take it from being evidence into the realms of proof. This is ongoing research and in coming years we will know more and more and it will be easier and easier for people to do these things at home with little training and see with their own eyes. I for the moment am happy to trust the scientists who invested so much time and energy into the project because they have no apparent reason to lie, if they had actually found results to deny the theory of evolution they would have gotten far more publicity from it. If anyone would like to post some similar evidence for the existence of god I would be grateful, I need this example to be something that ongoing testing is able to be done on and something that I could do myself with enough study on the right subjects, something I could get first hand data about not something someone else has written. I'm quite happy to change my mind about any of my beliefs if you can show me the evidence my mind desires.

[Danieltwotwenty]

The prediction is borne out and we can say we have evidence for Darwin and if man truly evolved from primates we have evidence against god.

How exactly is that evidence against God? If we evolved from apes all that means is that God used evolution as the catalyst for our existance.

If Darwin's theory was true it would have no effect on my faith in Jesus/God, all it means is that our understanding of creation wasn't quite right.

Dan

[Danieltwotwenty]

If anyone would like to post some similar evidence for the existence of god I would be grateful, I need this example to be something that ongoing testing is able to be done on and something that I could do myself with enough study on the right subjects, something I could get first hand data about not something someone else has written. I'm quite happy to change my mind about any of my beliefs if you can show me the evidence my mind desires.

There is plenty of evidence on the main site, but like all evidence it is subjective and an amount of faith is required.
In saying that the same can be said for the atheism position, they have no proof that God does not exist and that will require faith to believe it.
The burden of proof is on both parties as they are both making a claim on either existance or non-existance, I think the evidence for God's existance far outweighs any evidence for his non-existance ( which I don't think there is any evidence but i could be wrong).


Dan

[manicsloth]

Hi Dan, Thanks for the response. How is us evolving from apes evidence against god, you asked. Maybe I should rephrase that as evidence against the christian bible which claims man is made in gods image, god created Adam apparently. If this is true then gods image is a primate? How could this version of creation story be reconciled with humans evolving from apes?

If the bible can be wrong on this then where else is it wrong? If we can't trust the word of the bible do we really have a realistic belief system?

Your second post puts the burden of proof of non-existence on athiests, nothing can be proven not to exist. You can only ever provide evidence to support the claim it does not exist. Allow me to clarify this; say you lose your keys, you search your entire house and do not find them. Does this prove they are not in your house? No, only finding the keys somewhere else would prove that as you can never be sure you just didn't overlook them.

So we aren't able to prove non-existence, if there really is a deity out there that affects all our lives and causes things to happen on earth then there is evidence for this. He can apparently affect my life and so I should be able to gather this evidence for myself and yet nobody who is convinced of his existence can tell me how to measure this. Some christians claim supernatural healing, including the Vatican, yet every case I have ever looked into turns out to have heavy evidence showing it as a fraud.

Atheists keep providing christians with the evidence they ask for, since Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species christians have denied it as the mechanism and now insurmountable evidence is starting to show you guys drop the argument and say that it's ok, now evolution fits into the bible. I keep asking for experimental evidence for god and have never once received it, I asked again and you directed me to the main site which is full of lots of stuff. Much that I have read is the standard stuff you get everywhere and rather than spend my time going over loads of old material again in the hope of getting one good piece I'm asking the scholars here to direct me to what they have found so far that fits my criteria. Please can someone cite a specific article if they refer me to main site.

[RickD]

Hi Dan, Thanks for the response. How is us evolving from apes evidence against god, you asked. Maybe I should rephrase that as evidence against the christian bible which claims man is made in gods image, god created Adam apparently. If this is true then gods image is a primate? How could this version of creation story be reconciled with humans evolving from apes?

manicsloth, Being made in God's image, means the spiritual part of man, not the physical part. Humans alone, are said to be made in the image of God. Humans alone have a spirit. I agree with you, that if one claims to believe modern man evolved from some other animal, how does one reconcile that with being made in the image of God? If this kind of evolution is true, where along the line did God "insert" a spirit into this creature, making him "man"?

[Stu]

Let's take a quick look at the theory of evolution, I would just like to hear your views on this information and it's implications. We should all know from biology classes that the human genome is made up of 46 chromosomes which are paired into 23 pairs, Darwin predicts we have common ancestry with modern primates but unfortunately these primates have 24 chromosome pairs, an extra pair. The effect of losing or gaining an entire chromosome pair would be significant and therefore if Darwin is correct it cannot have been lost in our case or gained in that of the primates. This leaves just one other explanation, that 2 chromosome pairs have merged. Genome sequencing has been completed on both humans and the primates in question and the results analysed. The merged pairs have been found and noted. The prediction is borne out and we can say we have evidence for Darwin and if man truly evolved from primates we have evidence against god.

You do know that homology and comparative biology was used as evidence for a common designer before it was used as proof of common descent right?

Now having said that; the problem here is that you are assuming evolution.
So let's turn that around shall we. I assume a common designer, while you assume common descent.

Can I turn your "evidence" for evolution, into evidence for a designer. Yes I can.
(there are in fact several alternative explanations for this 'chromosomal fusion' but I'll list the obvious one)

By your reasoning (through common descent) organisms within similar groupings should share a similar number of chromosomes. That is of course not what we find.

Fern 480
White Ash 138
Carp 100
Goldfish 94
Sweet Potato 90
Turkey 82
Chicken 78
Dog 78
Amoeba 50
Chimp 48
Tobacco 48
Human 46
Bat 44
Wheat 42
Soybean 40
Cat 38
Alligator 32
Onion 32
Frog 26
Opossum 22
Redwood 22
Kidney Bean 22
Corn 20
Marijuana 20
Carrot 20
Lettuce 18
Honey Bee 16
Peas 14
House Fly 12
Tomato 12
Fruit Fly 8
Penicillin 2

As we can see the number of chromosomes is hardly an accurate reflection of what one might expect from that of common descent....

But what does this mean from an assumed "designed" perspective?
It simply tells us is that humans were designed with 48 chromosomes (as was tobacco), and a chromosomal fusion event took place somewhere in our own distinct historical past.

You see that is often the problem with evolutionary theory -- the result is assumed, so much of the so-called evidence can just as easily square with another entirely opposite (in this case) theory.

[Stu]

Atheists keep providing christians with the evidence they ask for, since Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species christians have denied it as the mechanism and now insurmountable evidence is starting to show you guys drop the argument and say that it's ok, now evolution fits into the bible.

That was perhaps true up until the 1990's. You're behind the times.

If anything the integrated complex nature of biological organisms that is continually being revealed suggests that neo-Darwinian evolution can in no way shape or form create complex systems like the cilium (contains hundreds of protein-protein binding sites) or flagellum (dozens of binding sites).
Bacteria and virus' have extremely rapid reproduction rates and enormous population sizes, yet in the entire history humans have studied HIV and malaria NO new protein-protein binding sites have been created through the mutation / selection mechanism. None.
Now if that is the case with organisms utilising a far far far superior evolutionary advantage, how on earth are mammals expected to come even close to achieving what we witness today.

The evidence is not mounting, it is shrinking, as our understanding of how life works increases.
Evolutionists expected life to be simple, as one might expect, a path of least resistance, yet it is nothing of the sort. And that trend has persisted, with evolutionary 'expectations' continually being proven false over and over and over again right from the time Darwin penned Origin of Species and Haeckel faked his embryonic drawings.

I keep asking for experimental evidence for god and have never once received it, I asked again and you directed me to the main site which is full of lots of stuff. Much that I have read is the standard stuff you get everywhere and rather than spend my time going over loads of old material again in the hope of getting one good piece I'm asking the scholars here to direct me to what they have found so far that fits my criteria. Please can someone cite a specific article if they refer me to main site.

How about:

1. A first cause. Only nothing can come from nothing.
There is something, therefore only a (supernatural) force outside of the natural world can account for matter and energy.

2. Fine-tuning of the universe.

- One requirement is a strong nuclear force that binds atoms together. If the strength of this force were to decrease by just 1 part in 10,000 billion billion billion billion, the only element left in the universe would be hydrogen.

- If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the Universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present state.

- Another is the force of gravity.
Imagine a ruler divided into one inch increments, stretched across the entire length of the universe, or 14 billion light years.

So if the ruler represents the possible range for gravity.
The setting for the strength of gravity just happens to be situated in the right place so that life is possible.

If you were to change the force of gravity by moving the setting just one inch compared to the entire width of the universe — the effect on life would be catastrophic.

The list goes on and on and on.....

Appealing to a multiverse doesn't solve the first cause problem either; as even atheist cosmologists like Alexander Vilenkin admit that "All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning". Why physicists can't avoid a creation event

My friend, the term secular religion is applicable today more than it has ever been throughout modern day history.

All the evidence and science points towards a supernatural event for the creation of the universe.
The fine-tuning of the laws, constants, right down to the smallest "settings" inside atoms are so finely tuned that any alterations to them would be disastrous.
With many of these fine-tuning's being reliant on the next; in other words if one has to go the rest would collapse too, a domino effect. So not only fine-tuning; but integrated dependant fine-tuning!

Atheism today represents an (ideological) denial of a "creator"; rather than a scientific stance through our actual understanding of the universe.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Hi Dan, Thanks for the response. How is us evolving from apes evidence against god, you asked. Maybe I should rephrase that as evidence against the christian bible which claims man is made in gods image, god created Adam apparently. If this is true then gods image is a primate? How could this version of creation story be reconciled with humans evolving from apes?

Quite easily, as Rick pointed out that God made us in his image i.e a freewill agent but it does not say exactly how he did this, we have some theistic evolutionists on this board prehaps they can elaborate further.

If the bible can be wrong on this then where else is it wrong? If we can't trust the word of the bible do we really have a realistic belief system?

The Bible wouldn't be wrong only our understanding of it would be wrong.

Your second post puts the burden of proof of non-existence on athiests, nothing can be proven not to exist. You can only ever provide evidence to support the claim it does not exist. Allow me to clarify this; say you lose your keys, you search your entire house and do not find them. Does this prove they are not in your house? No, only finding the keys somewhere else would prove that as you can never be sure you just didn't overlook them.

Not quite true, we all know Elephants exist and we can prove it with evidence but if you say they don't then you need to prove it. There is plenty of evidence for the existence of God, overwhelming in fact so much so that the burden of proof is switched to the opposer.

So we aren't able to prove non-existence, if there really is a deity out there that affects all our lives and causes things to happen on earth then there is evidence for this. He can apparently affect my life and so I should be able to gather this evidence for myself and yet nobody who is convinced of his existence can tell me how to measure this. Some christians claim supernatural healing, including the Vatican, yet every case I have ever looked into turns out to have heavy evidence showing it as a fraud.

There will always be frauds, there are frauds in science so does that means all science is false, i don't think so.

Atheists keep providing christians with the evidence they ask for, since Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species christians have denied it as the mechanism and now insurmountable evidence is starting to show you guys drop the argument and say that it's ok, now evolution fits into the bible

The evidence is subjective and skewed by your presuppositions as stu has pointed out.

I keep asking for experimental evidence for god and have never once received it, I asked again and you directed me to the main site which is full of lots of stuff. Much that I have read is the standard stuff you get everywhere and rather than spend my time going over loads of old material again in the hope of getting one good piece I'm asking the scholars here to direct me to what they have found so far that fits my criteria. Please can someone cite a specific article if they refer me to main site.

Doing your own research is more rewarding but you won't find an experiment for God, how could you possibly test something outside our frame of reference?
God has revealed himself through his revelation in Jesus.

By the way prehaps you should read the board purpose and guidelines before you comment further.


Dan

[BryanH]

My opinion is that at the moment you can't prove that God is real or not. We simply do not have the necessary level of understanding for that.

But I can prove that God is not the only deity that was involved in the Creation of the Universe. There are other religions in the world that do have different Gods and different perspectives on how the Universe was created and what it is expected from a believer.

The point I'm trying to make is that by simply applying logic and common sense, is that although Christian people believe in God and the Bible, there are other religions in the world which are far more older.

To make things more clear, Christianity is not the only true religion in the world. If you agree that God exists and it is something real, well, then you have to agree that other deities are also real. You can't just say: "My God is true and yours is a figment of your imagination". Christianity says: "There is only one true God and only way to Heavens!". Really? So other older religions in the world, much more older than Christianity, are wrong and pagan.

So even if you are a scientist, you can still prove by simple logic that our understanding of God is still limited at this time, even for Christian people who fail to recognize other religions over the world.

[Stu]

My opinion is that at the moment you can't prove that God is real or not. We simply do not have the necessary level of understanding for that.

I disagree -- as I have pointed out a supernatural "creator" is required for a "first cause"; and so too does the overwhelming fine-tuning of the universe. Many atheists are coming to this same conclusion.

But I can prove that God is not the only deity that was involved in the Creation of the Universe. There are other religions in the world that do have different Gods and different perspectives on how the Universe was created and what it is expected from a believer.

Yes of course, but "how the universe was created" and the fact that "the universe was created" are two different things. How doesn't remove from that fact that it still was created.

The point I'm trying to make is that by simply applying logic and common sense, is that although Christian people believe in God and the Bible, there are other religions in the world which are far more older.

Sure like Judaism. What religions are older than Judaism?

To make things more clear, Christianity is not the only true religion in the world. If you agree that God exists and it is something real, well, then you have to agree that other deities are also real. You can't just say: "My God is true and yours is a figment of your imagination". Christianity says: "There is only one true God and only way to Heavens!". Really? So other older religions in the world, much more older than Christianity, are wrong and pagan.

So even if you are a scientist, you can still prove by simple logic that our understanding of God is still limited at this time, even for Christian people who fail to recognize other religions over the world.

There is one major difference between Christianity and all other major religions -- Jesus said in no uncertain terms that he is the Son of God. God walked the earth, performed miracles and was then raised from the dead. The Bible has stood the test of time in terms of both it's historical and scientific references. Islam has questionable origins IMO, even Mohammed himself questioned the "messages" he received in the beginning.

Now proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Christianity is the only right religion might not be possible; but for me it certainly is the religion that stands head and shoulders above the rest.

[BryanH]

Sure like Judaism. What religions are older than Judaism?

1) The two religions that have the most believers worldwide are also the newest. Islam was born in 610 CE and Christianity started around 30 CE. .
Experts agree that the oldest organized religion is Hinduism, which dates back to 1,500 BCE, when the Vedas, the sacred texts of Hinduism, was written. Hinduism as a religion has no known individual creator, as it was put together from a variety of traditional beliefs from different cultures and mythologies. It is now the third largest religion in the world.
Judaism is another religion that was born thousands of years ago. Abraham, said to be born about 1800 BCE, is considered to be the father of Judaism. Moses, according to Jewish scholars, was the first to put the Torah in writing around 1400 BCE. Many consider the Torah to be the point where Judaism got its start.
Both Judaism and Hinduism have roots coming from Zoroastrianism which predates both.
2) Egyptian Religion that was polytheistic and is dated before Judaism
3) Mesopotamian religion which predates Egyptian religion
4) South American religions: Aztec, Maya, Olmec which predate judaism also polytheistic and also dated before judaism
5)Buddhism, Shintoism

Now proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Christianity is the only right religion might not be possible; but for me it certainly is the religion that stands head and shoulders above the rest.

I'm sorry to say but a religion that was spread around the world by force and killing innocent people doesn't stand head and shoulders above the rest. I think that I do not have to remind you about the Holy Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition who actually forced people to believe in God. There were many atrocities done in the name of God and all of these atrocities happened after Jesus Christ came and taught us to love and forgive and that all of us are equal in front of God.

There is one major difference between Christianity and all other major religions -- Jesus said in no uncertain terms that he is the Son of God. God walked the earth, performed miracles and was then raised from the dead

There is no certain and real historical proof of the miracles that Jesus did. All of those are suppositions and nothing more. There are no reliable historical sources that can prove all those miracles that happened.

[Stu]

Sure like Judaism. What religions are older than Judaism?

1) The two religions that have the most believers worldwide are also the newest. Islam was born in 610 CE and Christianity started around 30 CE. .
Experts agree that the oldest organized religion is Hinduism, which dates back to 1,500 BCE, when the Vedas, the sacred texts of Hinduism, was written. Hinduism as a religion has no known individual creator, as it was put together from a variety of traditional beliefs from different cultures and mythologies. It is now the third largest religion in the world.
Judaism is another religion that was born thousands of years ago. Abraham, said to be born about 1800 BCE, is considered to be the father of Judaism. Moses, according to Jewish scholars, was the first to put the Torah in writing around 1400 BCE. Many consider the Torah to be the point where Judaism got its start.
Both Judaism and Hinduism have roots coming from Zoroastrianism which predates both.
2) Egyptian Religion that was polytheistic and is dated before Judaism
3) Mesopotamian religion which predates Egyptian religion
4) South American religions: Aztec, Maya, Olmec which predate judaism also polytheistic and also dated before judaism
5)Buddhism, Shintoism

Well unfortunately I'm no expert on ancient cultures so perhaps another member can speak to that..

But to me your definition of "religion" seems somewhat limiting.
Just because the historical events had only been transcribed at a particular point does not mean Judaism as a religion began at that specific point. If the Jews had been following and living according to Gods word all that time, the "religion" extends well back until the point that God revealed himself to the Jews.

I'm sorry to say but a religion that was spread around the world by force and killing innocent people doesn't stand head and shoulders above the rest. I think that I do not have to remind you about the Holy Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition who actually forced people to believe in God. There were many atrocities done in the name of God and all of these atrocities happened after Jesus Christ came and taught us to love and forgive and that all of us are equal in front of God.

Well I think you have answered your own criticism of Christianity here (the bold part).

Who perpetrated those atrocities? What was the driving force behind it. Man or God?
It was man. Just as any other system like democracy, communism, Darwinism (eugenics) can be hijacked by man to serve his own purpose, so to has Christianity.

Conquest was a large part of humanity back then, no matter the religion (or not) of the country in question. The expansion of ones borders was uppermost on the list.

There is no certain and real historical proof of the miracles that Jesus did. All of those are suppositions and nothing more. There are no reliable historical sources that can prove all those miracles that happened.

Well if you hadn't selectively quoted me, you would see that I admitted as much.

And yet early human history is almost always the product of eye-witness accounts. Many events in human history we accept based on "faith" as that is all we have to go on.

[BryanH]

It was man. Just as any other system like democracy, communism, Darwinism (eugenics) can be hijacked by man to serve his own purpose, so to has Christianity.

Of course this is true, but you see, as I said before, something built on lies and blood can't be God's work. Christianity was hijacked a very long time ago when some "very smart" people discovered how easily you can manipulate people if you invoke the supernatural, if you invoke God. Let's not forget as well how Christianity managed to spread in Europe and from here to the rest of the world. It was emperor Constantine who suddenly had a revelation... and he was also sanctified... now that's a cruel joke of history. A man who killed thousands of Christians (men, women, children) was sanctified because one day he decided to make Christianity legal.

Here is a small quote of how Christianity spread in Europe:

We know that by the time of St Paul, Christianity had spread throughout much of the Near East and Greece, and at least as far as Rome. It may be that part of the reason for this spread was the spread of the diaspora Jews through the Roman Empire. However, Paul undoubtedly played a major part in this early expansion into Europe.

By the early fourth century, Christians formed a significant minority of the population of the Roman Empire, estimated at around ten per cent. When Constantine became the Roman Emperor, he gave Christianity state patronage and expended considerable state funds on a major program of church building and maintenance. When German tribes were conquered, Constantine required as part of the peace treaty that they convert to Christianity. Soon Christians were to be found throughout the empire. Before the end of the fourth century, Christianity was declared the state religion of the Roman Empire, and the public worship of the old gods was banned.

After the collapse of the western Roman Empire, parts of the former Empire, such as Britain were repaganised, if they had ever really been fully Christian.

A Christian mission sent in 597 from Rome to Britain, under Augustine, visited the king of Kent who agreed it would be politically valuable to have continental support, and so became Christian. Essex became Christian again in 603. And so, in various parts of Britain, faith swung between Christianity and paganism for several more centuries.

The Christianisation of Vikings began in 911 when King Charles the Simple of France invited a Viking raiding party to settle, on condition they became Christian. The settlers became known as Normans and were later to conquer England.

A Russian ruler was persuaded that it would be advantageous to have cultural links to the remainder of Europe. He invited representatives from the Catholic Church, the Greek Orthodox Church and Judaism to explain each faith and the benefits that would accrue by following that faith. After consideration, he chose to adopt Orthodox Christianity and mandated conversion for all Russians.

So, voluntary conversion did play a part in the spread of Christianity, particularly in the early years of Christianity. However, the main impetus for its spread was that people accepted the decisions of their rulers,who, in turn, often chose to accept Christianity for quite cynical reasons.

I'm just saying that Christianity was never a choice for some people and something done by force and blood can't be the work of God. So you see in terms of cause-effect, Christianity was just a political tool and nothing more. I'M NOT SAYING THAT YOU SHOULD NOT BELIEVE IN GOD, but please don't quote the Bible and tell me is a holy book which tries to teach us the word of God. The Bible you have today was edited and written by the same people who agreed that Constantine should be sanctified... I haven't heard any person that has a high position in any church to dismiss such a horrible mistake and rectify it. Constantine is not a saint and will never be. After you kill thousands of people you can't just say I'm sorry. Now your religion is legal. Have fun!! Here is some money to build churches and stuff.

God does exist and I'm pretty sure of that, but the Bible is quite far away from what God ever intended for us. Again, I repeat this so I don't offend anyone here because that is not my intention. Christianity has its good things and believing in God is something positive in a person's life.

[Stu]

Of course this is true, but you see, as I said before, something built on lies and blood can't be God's work. Christianity was hijacked a very long time ago when some "very smart" people discovered how easily you can manipulate people if you invoke the supernatural, if you invoke God. Let's not forget as well how Christianity managed to spread in Europe and from here to the rest of the world. It was emperor Constantine who suddenly had a revelation... and he was also sanctified... now that's a cruel joke of history. A man who killed thousands of Christians (men, women, children) was sanctified because one day he decided to make Christianity legal.

Yes you're right, it was man's work.

Let me sketch a scenario for you.
An isolated group of tribe's people are found somewhere in a South American jungle; however they are on the verge of complete annihilation as disease has swept throughout the population. Without medical assistance they will all die.

A group of aid workers under the auspices of the United Nations go in to provide medical assistance. However the tribes people don't want any outside help. These particular aid workers go against the UN's directives and ignore the tribe's wishes as well -- they go in anyway to provide vaccines and medical care, using force were necessary to subdue any opposition. People are hurt, some even badly injured, but lives are saved and the tribe as a whole survives; and in addition are taught hygienic practices to prevent future disease, and even taught natural cures from various plants growing in the area.

My questions are these: Is the United Nations as a body immoral? And is the medical know-how that that has been passed on to the people invalid, corrupt or wrong because of the actions of the aid workers?

Or do they stand independent of the actions of the aid workers who, in the name of the United Nations, committed the violent acts?

I'm just saying that Christianity was never a choice for some people and something done by force and blood can't be the work of God. So you see in terms of cause-effect, Christianity was just a political tool and nothing more. I'M NOT SAYING THAT YOU SHOULD NOT BELIEVE IN GOD, but please don't quote the Bible and tell me is a holy book which tries to teach us the word of God. The Bible you have today was edited and written by the same people who agreed that Constantine should be sanctified... I haven't heard any person that has a high position in any church to dismiss such a horrible mistake and rectify it. Constantine is not a saint and will never be. After you kill thousands of people you can't just say I'm sorry. Now your religion is legal. Have fun!! Here is some money to build churches and stuff.

God does exist and I'm pretty sure of that, but the Bible is quite far away from what God ever intended for us. Again, I repeat this so I don't offend anyone here because that is not my intention. Christianity has its good things and believing in God is something positive in a person's life.

The problem is you're using a twisted sense of logic to draw conclusions about Christianity.

There are a number of issues here.
First off, as I pointed out above Christianity and it's message stands apart from the actions of it's followers.

Let me make a comparison with something perhaps a little closer to home.
Under Bush, America illegally invaded Iraq, killing many people in the process.

- Does this make a democratic Iraq wrong?
- Does it make democracy, freedom of the press or freedom of speech (as promoted by the American way of life) wrong in Iraq?
- Does it render any democracy that might spread throughout the Middle-East as a result wrong?

- And what of that which America represents -- does this mean that the American people, it's constitution, values and freedoms are tainted because a man misused the power American democracy afforded him?

Secondly, Christianity is not something that can be forced onto a person. If you do not accept Jesus in your heart you will never be a Christian, which is why, as you yourself pointed out, some areas that had been colonised, once freed, have gone back to their original beliefs.

The overarching point is that Christianity is a journey you walk with God, independent of how you came to know of Him -- if you accept Jesus he will be with you. Jesus, his sacrifice and message are never-changing.

The bottom line is this: God & Jesus (and therefore Christianity) cannot be tainted by the actions of man.

[sandy_mcd]

Now having said that; the problem here is that you are assuming evolution.
So let's turn that around shall we. I assume a common designer, while you assume common descent.

Can I turn your "evidence" for evolution, into evidence for a designer. Yes I can.
(there are in fact several alternative explanations for this 'chromosomal fusion' but I'll list the obvious one)

The problem is that anything is evidence for a designer. All of Stu's explanations come down to "That is the way the Designer did it". Good design? Bad design? Everything's got a justification. No one can give an example of something which couldn't be explained by that statement. Common descent can be disproven.

And chromosome numbers can change readily, so the table doesn't show anything. See, e.g.
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/9/1326.full

Muntjac deer (Muntiacinae, Cervidae) are of great interest in evolutionary studies because of their dramatic chromosome variations and recent discoveries of several new species. In this paper, we analyze the evolution of karyotypes of muntjac deer in the context of a phylogeny which is based on 1,844-bp mitochondrial DNA sequences of seven generally recognized species in the muntjac subfamily. The phylogenetic results support the hypothesis that karyotypic evolution in muntjac deer has proceeded via reduction in diploid number. However, the reduction in number is not always linear, i.e., not strictly following the order: 46→14/13→8/9→6/7. For example, Muntiacus muntjak (2n = 6/7) shares a common ancestor with Muntiacus feae (2n = 13/14), which indicates that its karyotype was derived in parallel with M. feae's from an ancestral karyotype of 2n ≥ 13/14. The newly discovered giant muntjac (Muntiacus vuquangensis) may represent another parallel reduction lineage from the ancestral 2n = 46 karyotype. Our phylogenetic results indicate that the giant muntjac is relatively closer to Muntiacus reevesi than to other muntjacs and may be placed in the genus Muntiacus. Analyses of sequence divergence reveal that the rate of change in chromosome number in muntjac deer is one of the fastest in vertebrates. Within the muntjac subfamily, the fastest evolutionary rate is found in the Fea's lineage, in which two species with different karyotypes diverged in around 0.5 Myr.