Quantcast

Has anyone read this God vs Science lecture? If you have not- it is worth reading.

Extremist Soldier of Christ 2009/04/03 14:30:31
The student made more sense
The Professor made more sense
You!
Add Photos & Videos
THIS IS THE BEST AND SIMPLEST EXPLANATION I THINK I'VE EVER SEEN AND IT USES THE VERY SCIENCE THAT MANY USE TO DISPROVE THE VERY EXISTENCE OF GOD.


'Let me explain the problem science has with religion.' The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'

'Yes sir,' the student says.

'So you believe in God?'

'Absolutely.

'Is God good?'

'Sure! God's good.'

'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?'

'Yes'

'Are you good or evil?'

'The Bible says I'm evil.'

The professor grins knowingly. 'Aha! The Bible!' He considers for a moment. 'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?'

'Yes sir, I would.'

'So you're good...!'

'I wouldn't say that.'

'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you
could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't.'



The student does not answer, so the professor continues. 'He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?'


The student remains silent.

'No, you can't, can you?' the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.


'Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?'


'Er..yes,' the student says.


"is Satan good?'

The student doesn't hesitate on this one. 'No.'

'Then where does Satan come from?'

The student falters. 'From God'

'That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this
world?'

'Yes, sir.'


'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything correct??

'Yes'

'So who created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.'



Again, the student has no answer. 'Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?'


The student squirms on his feet. 'Yes.'

'So who created them?'

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. 'Who created them?' There is still no answer.. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. 'Tell me,' he continues onto another student.


'Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?


The student's voice betrays him and cracks. 'Yes, professor, I do.'

The old man stops pacing. 'Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?'

'No sir. I've never seen Him.'

'Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?'

'No, sir, I have not.'

'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelled your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?'

'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.'

'Yet you still believe in him?'

'Yes'

'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?'

'Nothing,' the student replies. 'I only have my faith.'

'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'And that is the problem science
has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.'


The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. 'Professor, is there such thing as heat?'


'Yes.'

'And is there such a thing as cold?'

'Yes, son, there's cold too.'

'No sir, there isn't.'

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested.

The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain.

'You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees.'

'Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or tran smit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.'

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'

'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation. 'What is night if it isn't darkness?'

'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word.'

'In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?'

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. 'So what point are you making, young man?

'Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.'

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. 'Flawed? Can you explain how?'

'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains.. 'You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.'

'It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it. 'Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?'

'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.'

'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good
semester, indeed.

'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'



The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.

'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.'

The student looks around the room. 'Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?' The class breaks out into laughter.

'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelled the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.'

'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?'

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.

Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. 'I guess you'll have to take them on faith..'

Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,' the student continues.. 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?'

Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it everyday It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.'


To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.'


The professor sat down.


The student was Albert Einstein. Albert Einstein did write a book titled God vs. Science in 1921...


If you read it all the way through and had a smile on your face when you finished, mail to your friends and family with the title "God vs. Science".
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Bubbie 2010/08/06 03:52:21
    None of the above
    Bubbie
    +2
    The ONLY thing that is FALSE about this dialog is that the student was NOT Albert Einstein. The student's response is right on. There is no such thing as 'darkness' other than it is just the absence of 'light', just as the rest of the facts are true. No, the very God and Creator did NOT create Evil, but gave humans the freedom of will and choice. Evil (or sin) came into this perfect world when man decided to do the ONE THING that God had forbidden. From that point on, mankind was broken spiritually and physically. But thanks be to God that He provided the one and only way to be restored and acceptable to Him, with the atonement of His precious Son, that whoever believes in Him and the one who sent Him, is now clothed in His righteousness and are justified, (just if i'd) never fell short of the perfection required by a Holy God. For we now live by the faith and grace given to us. It is a gift that nobody deserves, but those that have accepted this gift can do nothing BUT boast of our Lord. To live in the light of Christ, is to be absent from darkness of everlasting death.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Brian Orr 2013/07/20 06:52:28
    None of the above
    Brian Orr
    To deny evolution (or climate change) is simply the decision to remain ignorant. We can prove evolution every day. We have implemented new cleaning regimens and enforced rules about wearing shoes in the locker room shower. Why? Because bacteria evolved to resist antibiotics. Insecticide treated mosquito nets no longer act as effective defense against malaria in Africa. Why? Because the mosquitos evolved to resist the poison. This whole "discussion" is a work of fiction, devoid of fact or logic and meant to reinforce the beliefs of those that refuse to think for themselves.
  • Gregaj7 2013/02/20 05:34:54
    None of the above
    Gregaj7
    The exchange never took place.
    http://urbanlegends.about.com...
  • john darcy 2011/03/06 13:40:53
    The student made more sense
    john darcy
    I think the student's assertion about evil is true -- It is a privation -- the lack of something, the lack of goodness. His basic faith in God doesn't contradict reason, but makes sense of life and human experience. Faith and reason go hand in hand.

    The question of the creation of the universe is beyond science.
    Reason alone can deduce God as the first cause. The principle of cause and effect seems to be true and undeniable. Thomas Aquinas in one of his 5 proofs of God's existence speaks of God as the first cause. Whatever exists is here because something else caused it to be here. Simply put, God is the first cause of the universe.

    Another great thinker and mathematician, Blaise Pascal speaks of the wager in his book, Pensees. Basically, either God exists or God does not exist, and you can either wager for God or wager against God. If you win the bet and God does exist you gain eternal happiness. If the atheist wins what does he get? Nothing. What are you betting on?
    C.S. Lewis said this:"Aim at heaven and you will get earth thrown in. Aim at earth and you get neither."

    Unfortunately, the brilliant Einstein didn't believe in God.
    Its very unfortunate he didn't have the privilege of meeting a man in his own day who was truly a literary genius and exceptional...



    I think the student's assertion about evil is true -- It is a privation -- the lack of something, the lack of goodness. His basic faith in God doesn't contradict reason, but makes sense of life and human experience. Faith and reason go hand in hand.

    The question of the creation of the universe is beyond science.
    Reason alone can deduce God as the first cause. The principle of cause and effect seems to be true and undeniable. Thomas Aquinas in one of his 5 proofs of God's existence speaks of God as the first cause. Whatever exists is here because something else caused it to be here. Simply put, God is the first cause of the universe.

    Another great thinker and mathematician, Blaise Pascal speaks of the wager in his book, Pensees. Basically, either God exists or God does not exist, and you can either wager for God or wager against God. If you win the bet and God does exist you gain eternal happiness. If the atheist wins what does he get? Nothing. What are you betting on?
    C.S. Lewis said this:"Aim at heaven and you will get earth thrown in. Aim at earth and you get neither."

    Unfortunately, the brilliant Einstein didn't believe in God.
    Its very unfortunate he didn't have the privilege of meeting a man in his own day who was truly a literary genius and exceptional philosopher: G.K. Chesterton.
    ---
    “The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve.”
    ---
    Albert Einstein in a letter to Beatrice Frohlich, December 17, 1952; Einstein Archive 59-797; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 217.
    (more)
  • DaveRetz 2011/02/05 09:02:50
    The student made more sense
    DaveRetz
    "Raffiniert ist der Herrgott, aber boshaft ist er nicht", or "Subtle is God, but malicious is He not." Said by Einstein in 1921 in his visit to Princeton University. Would he use the word Herrgott (capitalized) if he was not a believer in God? This an other later quotes such as "God does not play dice" emphasize his belief, or faith in, God.

    With respect to his belief in a Christ, or Messiah, as the second student attested, it would not be impossible for him to accept this. There are many Jews that accept Jeshua as the Messiah (but do not call themselves "Christians".

    The premises are those that would be taken by a scientist, realizing that absence is not necessarily the converse of presence. This was a brilliant response to the line of questioning.
    -dr


    .
  • Stacey Cilia 2011/01/11 21:30:57
    None of the above
    Stacey Cilia
    +1
    Both sides of the argument were poorly argued and riddled with logical fallacies and problems with their premises. However, it is clear that this message is anything but objective and that the atheist professor -- who apparently does not enjoy the facility of logic, the cornerstone of the discipline -- is nothing more than a tool to be used to "prove" an argument. Not only does the professor make logically invalid statements, he fails to correct the student when he makes his own logically invalid arguments.

    This email gets off to the bad start from the very first sentence. The lack of evidence is NOT the reason that science has a problem with religion. Normally, they occupy spheres that do not touch. Individual scientists hold a wide array of religious beliefs, and most of them understand that religion is not the purview of science. The conflict between religion and science comes in because religion has caused an uproar whenever science discovers something that is potentially "threatening" to religion (i.e. something that changes the way people look at the world). Just look at what the church did to Galileo when he proved Copernican cosmology.

    The professor goes on to state, "According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God ...















    Both sides of the argument were poorly argued and riddled with logical fallacies and problems with their premises. However, it is clear that this message is anything but objective and that the atheist professor -- who apparently does not enjoy the facility of logic, the cornerstone of the discipline -- is nothing more than a tool to be used to "prove" an argument. Not only does the professor make logically invalid statements, he fails to correct the student when he makes his own logically invalid arguments.

    This email gets off to the bad start from the very first sentence. The lack of evidence is NOT the reason that science has a problem with religion. Normally, they occupy spheres that do not touch. Individual scientists hold a wide array of religious beliefs, and most of them understand that religion is not the purview of science. The conflict between religion and science comes in because religion has caused an uproar whenever science discovers something that is potentially "threatening" to religion (i.e. something that changes the way people look at the world). Just look at what the church did to Galileo when he proved Copernican cosmology.

    The professor goes on to state, "According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist," which, of course, is false. There is a HUGE difference between not being able to prove that something exists and proving that it doesn't exist. In other words, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (based on the rule of logic that if one premise is true, its converse is not necessarily so. If A implies B, it does not logically hold that B implies A or Not A implies Not B). To give a clearer example, think of aliens. We haven’t been able to prove that they exist. This is not proof that they DON’T exist. We won’t have proof until we’ve searched every corner of the universe(s) simultaneously (not possible -- well, at least not in a foreseeable lifetime).

    Additionally, if the professor is aiming to prove that God doesn't exist, he has to argue within the framework of what the Christian God is defined to be: omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, omni-everything. He is not doing that, therefore is premise is flawed. OF COURSE the Christian God has the potential to be evil: he's omnipotent, yet he chooses not to be out-and-out evil. A theist should easily counter the professor's assertion that God is evil, shut down that line of argument, and prevent the professor from making logically flawed arguments that stem from the flawed premise.

    My point is that smart, thoughtful non-theists use reason and have much less flawed arguments than this puppet professor. He was intentionally chosen to be weak so that the theist student looks better and stronger.

    Ok, enough of the professor.

    As much as they try to make the theist student look smart, they have fallen into the following traps right from the get-go:

    The student asserts that science can't explain a thought. Maybe not YET, but that doesn't mean that it won't ever happen. Additionally, religion can't explain thoughts either. So what has this statement done? All it says is that there is stuff out there that science doesn’t have an answer for, which is no big surprise or revelation. Why have it in here? A real philosophy professor wouldn’t have allowed it, especially since the student never builds on it in his final argument.

    The student asserts that we can't see evolution, which is patently false. Evolution is the reason that we are starting to see antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Bacterial DNA mutates, and if that mutation means that the mutation-carrying bacteria can resist the onslaught of penicillin and survive to continue to grow and divide and thus pass on their DNA (whereas the bacteria without the mutation died), that's evolution right there! You may counter that this email takes place before such processes were known, and I will respond that the whole thing is a piece of fiction, since Albert Einstein was anything but a Christian (he was raised Jewish and later became a Spinozan pantheist and possibly an agnostic) and he wrote no such book titled "Science vs. God". (Plus, why would a philosophy professor be teaching that humans evolved from monkeys in his class? That's not his subject matter.)

    The student goes on to state, "So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain." This argument is laughable because it would be quite a simple matter to demonstrate the presence of a brain. Proving someone possesses a brain and proving that a god exists are two COMPLETELY different things, both philosophically and physically. It is easy to prove, via the scientific method (and thus by repeatable physical experimentation), that the professor has a brain. The same cannot be said about the existence of a god.

    Thus, as demonstrated above, the student's premises are logically flawed as well, which means that his resulting arguments and conclusion are at least as logically flawed. On the surface, this email may make people FEEL good, which is undoubtedly why it's been making the rounds for so long, but it all topples the minute you turn a critical eye to the arguments. This, of course, does not mean that the conclusion is incorrect, it simply means that it has not been proven correct. Students of logic would do well to remember it.
    (more)
  • John Hanna Stacey ... 2011/06/07 04:49:57
    John Hanna
    +1
    I really appreciate your response. It was very well thought out. However, it missed the point. It can be summed up as such. For as much as science thinks it understands, and I am a big believer in science, it can't disprove the existence of God. Just about any argument can be taken in a spiral pattern and be brought back to disprove the original statement. Yes, the professor in the story was a "puppet". It wouldn't have been a very good story without it but it made you think. There are way too many emails out there that try to pass on a message but then shame you into not passing them on as you would a joke or some type of humor. They miss the point as well. If you believe in it, pass it, not because some one shamed you into it and you are a bad person if you don't but because it might make someone else think. Now isn't that the point?
  • mel 2010/10/16 02:09:16
    Undecided
    mel
    Join the discussion. Share your opinion with millions!
  • lazurm mel 2010/11/09 02:54:45
    lazurm
    +3
    Actually, scientists today have observed Evolution taking place as it happens, with experiments on the fruit fly, whose lifespan is 2 weeks and can be studied in that way. The student's other arguments have a high level of speciousness. For instance, every living human has a brain. We don't have to see each and every brain to know this, just as we don't have to notice the characteristics of every atom to understand atoms and their role in understanding matter. The word "darkness" is not a scientific term and, if the professor thinks it is, he would be incorrect, likewise the word "cold".
    The arguments the professor uses to disprove the reality of a god is limited and flawed. There are much better arguments but they can never overcome the lack of critical thinking, otherwise known as faith. The point is, if a person believes a table is a chair, it is...for him/her. Similar to that, if a person believes there's a god they will act as though there is one and there will, therefore, be one...for them. As for science, scientist can only study that which is part of the "natural" world (ie., measurable, predictable, confirmable), as opposed to the supernatural world.
  • J lazurm 2010/12/05 00:13:16
    J
    +2
    Scientists have actually only observed micro-evolution. This is the form of evolution, or change over time, which Darwin observed in his finches on the Galapagos Islands. Environmental conditions produce slight changes in the species, but there has never been an instance of macro-evolution in which one species completely changes into another. There may be similarities in form but they are based on function. A turtle and a shark both have fins because they live in the water and the form of the fin is based on function of propulsion. The fact that a turtle has fins does not mean that it evolved from a shark or vice versa.

    As for faith being a lack of critical thinking, it actually requires critical thinking for existence. “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Hebrews 11:1 (King James Version) The existence of the object of desire is not necessary for response. If that were the case Edison would never have invented the light bulb. The fact that something can be conceived adds credibility to the possibility of its existence. It is one of the evidences that we use to confirm its existence.

    However, we were never created to have “blind faith” in Isaiah 1:18 God says “Come now, and let us reason together.” (KJV) The intricate design of...
    Scientists have actually only observed micro-evolution. This is the form of evolution, or change over time, which Darwin observed in his finches on the Galapagos Islands. Environmental conditions produce slight changes in the species, but there has never been an instance of macro-evolution in which one species completely changes into another. There may be similarities in form but they are based on function. A turtle and a shark both have fins because they live in the water and the form of the fin is based on function of propulsion. The fact that a turtle has fins does not mean that it evolved from a shark or vice versa.

    As for faith being a lack of critical thinking, it actually requires critical thinking for existence. “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Hebrews 11:1 (King James Version) The existence of the object of desire is not necessary for response. If that were the case Edison would never have invented the light bulb. The fact that something can be conceived adds credibility to the possibility of its existence. It is one of the evidences that we use to confirm its existence.

    However, we were never created to have “blind faith” in Isaiah 1:18 God says “Come now, and let us reason together.” (KJV) The intricate design of creation provides insights to the existence of a creator. “…The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.” Psalm 19:1 (NIV). This can be seen in the theoretical quark particle. We have no way of proving its existence completely, but we can see how (mathematically) all of the rest of creation reacts, to indicate that it is there. The quark is the building block of the proton, neutron, atom, and all the rest of matter. So everything we can observe is built on these quark particles of light. In 1 John 1:5 we are told that “God is light”(KJV) and in James 1:17 God is described as the one “…who created all heaven's lights (NLT).” And let’s not forget “Let there be light” from Genesis 1:3 (KJV).
    (more)
  • Heather J 2011/04/20 15:50:33
    Heather
    +3
    I love where you said:
    'The existence of the object of desire is not necessary for response. If that were the case Edison would never have invented the light bulb. The fact that something can be conceived adds credibility to the possibility of its existence. It is one of the evidences that we use to confirm its existence."

    Anything that is in existence is because someone conceived the idea of that object, the very computer I'm typing on once was not in existence but they are here now because someone had the idea and believed that it could exist. It is the same principle for my God, I believe that he exists and because of my faith and belief one day he will come back and everyone that ever argued his existence will see that he does in fact exist and always has!

    I don't have any scientific knowledge of anything but my heart tells me that God exists and things that I have experienced personally also tell me that my God does in fact exist!!
  • Jeff As... Heather 2011/12/08 11:51:01
    Jeff Asmussen
    +3
    I love your statement "Anything that is in existence is because someone conceived the idea of that object" Yet you missed the obvious connection that the notion there are gods or that a god exists is because "someone conceived the idea of it"
    creation was the act of man creating gods, not vice-versa.
    p.s. Your heart tells you nothing, it's a pump.
  • Debra M... lazurm 2010/12/10 19:40:44
    Debra Maxwell
    +3
    I'd love to hear what those fruit flies envolved into -- apes which then envolved into ppl?
  • Jim M lazurm 2011/01/03 15:45:21 (edited)
    Jim M
    +2
    Your wrong about observing evolution. We have never observed evolution, thats why its called a theory. The only observations made in fruit flys are called mutations which is not macro evolution. All the mutations were a detriment to the organism not a benefit. You have to have an increase in genetic complexity and be able to pass that on to your offspring. Its not even micro evolution (which is already present in our genes).
    Also, I hate to break this to you but a table is not a chair no matter how much you might believe it is. Faith should be based on logic and truth. Thats the way God wants it...thats the only way it can be.
  • Stacey ... Jim M 2011/01/11 21:09:14
    Stacey Cilia
    +2
    Most mutations are going to be maladaptive, it's true. Genomes are so large and complex that a small change can wreak havoc. The organism bearing the change will likely die. Or, the change will set in too late in life for it to impact the organism's reproductive success (e.g. Huntington's disease). However, occasionally there will be a change that actually actively helps an organism attain reproduction (and, of course, will help their offspring also attain reproductive success). It's rare, and that's why evolutionary processes are so slow. And sometimes, traits that help an organism and their offspring survive cause big problems in other areas (1. Big brains give us obvious advantages, but they also cause numerous problems in childbirth and cause our young to be born helpless, which can hurt the parents' -- and thus the child's -- chance of survival, though this applies much more in early human civilization than today. 2. Walking upright also gives us many advantages, but it gives us a lot of back problems and problems in childbirth due to changes in the pelvis). There is no hand guiding the evolutionary process -- it's all random genetic mutation -- so it's not like those processes have a goal or end-state in mind that they're working towards. It's all about the sur...



    Most mutations are going to be maladaptive, it's true. Genomes are so large and complex that a small change can wreak havoc. The organism bearing the change will likely die. Or, the change will set in too late in life for it to impact the organism's reproductive success (e.g. Huntington's disease). However, occasionally there will be a change that actually actively helps an organism attain reproduction (and, of course, will help their offspring also attain reproductive success). It's rare, and that's why evolutionary processes are so slow. And sometimes, traits that help an organism and their offspring survive cause big problems in other areas (1. Big brains give us obvious advantages, but they also cause numerous problems in childbirth and cause our young to be born helpless, which can hurt the parents' -- and thus the child's -- chance of survival, though this applies much more in early human civilization than today. 2. Walking upright also gives us many advantages, but it gives us a lot of back problems and problems in childbirth due to changes in the pelvis). There is no hand guiding the evolutionary process -- it's all random genetic mutation -- so it's not like those processes have a goal or end-state in mind that they're working towards. It's all about the survival and reproduction of the current generation.

    You've dismissed the example of fruit flies, so I will offer a different one. Take a look at antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Bacterial DNA mutates, and if that mutation means that the mutation-carrying bacteria can resist the onslaught of penicillin and survive to continue to grow and divide and thus pass on their DNA (whereas the bacteria without the mutation died), that's evolution right there, and it's what were seeing with numerous previously-treatable conditions. Yes, it's micro-evolution, but I'm not about to commit the logical fallacy of saying that it won't (or can't) lead to an entirely different species just because it hasn't happened YET.

    Finally, a look at the word 'theory' itself: many fail to notice that the definition of theory is a hypothesis that is supported by the scientific method, and if a theory is good, then as new research is discovered, it will continue to support the theory instead of disproving it, which is PRECISELY what the theory of evolution has done. The word "theory" is not derisive at all; rather, it is a strong recommendation. Your statement "We have never observed evolution, [sic] thats [sic] why its [sic] called a theory" is patently false. Actual repeatable experiments have confirmed much of Einstein's theory of relativity, yet it is still called a theory (e.g. yes, your watch actually does run more slowly on an airplane than a watch on the ground). Additionally, in math, when you have a question you haven't yet proven, it is called a hypothesis or conjecture (e.g. the Reimann hypothesis, one of the great open questions in mathematics). Only once it is proved through rigorous logic can it be called a theorem. Surely you don't think that the kids being taught the Pythagorean Theorem in geometry class are learning just a "theory" as you have defined it. Of course it's been proven.
    (more)
  • Jeff As... Jim M 2011/12/08 11:53:22
    Jeff Asmussen
    +2
    You have been misinformed and have chosen to accept what you are told because it agrees with your pre-conceived notions. A few minutes research would correct you but hey, never let reality get in the way of a good religious delusion.
  • Jeff As... Jim M 2011/12/15 07:41:45
    Jeff Asmussen
    You misunderstand the word "theory", It does not mean hypothesis. I suspect you already know that but when facts don't support your arguments, and they never will, you must resort to bluster and bullsh|t.
  • Heather lazurm 2011/04/20 16:07:30
    Heather
    +2
    Can you tell me exactly, what did the fruit flies evolve into in their short 2 weeks of life? If they were truly evolving they probably would have lived longer than their 2 weeks and that evolution would have been passed onto their offspring. I love the fact that you actually think that if you believe a table is a chair than it is for that person, that is not even a little bit true no matter how much you will that table to be a chair it will STILL be a table even to the person who thinks it's a chair, and so you're also telling me that if I believe in God then I will ACT as though there is one and there will be one FOR ME. Let me correct you on this statement, I ACT the way I do because I have God living inside of me and God is everywhere regardless of whether you believe in him or not He is still here and he can live inside of you too if you choose to invite him into your heart!!
  • Jeff As... Heather 2011/12/15 07:46:48
    Jeff Asmussen
    If this is how you actually think evolution works, you have been misinformed. Most likely intentionally. Perhaps you should ponder why those who told you that lied to you. Why did they not want you to understand an almost universally understood fact? perhaps because it can only undermine their belief structure and they need to share their delusion. Only a very small percentage of even remotely educated people still hold on to the ludicrous concept of creation.
  • Ekim 2010/08/10 00:52:37
    None of the above
    Ekim
    +2
    Science isn't so much a 'thing' as it is a 'method'; a method for examining the universe and everything in it (including us), and explaining what was observed. Many of the arguments written here are wrought with faulty logic, cliche and presupposition. One truth was certainly spoken by the person who said that - to paraphrase - 'you either believe in god or you don't'. It certainly is a choice. If anyone reading this is interested in choosing to learn something more about the scientific method, its rationale, limitations, history, as well as exploring this artificial controversy between science and faith (i did not say 'religion') then I would recommend that you click on over to You Tube and look up the following channels: AaronRa, Thunderfoot, Andromeda's Wake. This recommendation comes with a warning. If you are utterly convinced that your religious book (whichever one you're reading) has all the answers you'll ever need and that your religious faith is without error then you will likely be offended by these videos. Therein you will hear in-depth explanations of the theory of evolution, the definition of a scientific theory (as opposed to the vernacular use of the word), logic and logical arguments, as well as numerous links to other subjects of study. It's simple to find an...
    Science isn't so much a 'thing' as it is a 'method'; a method for examining the universe and everything in it (including us), and explaining what was observed. Many of the arguments written here are wrought with faulty logic, cliche and presupposition. One truth was certainly spoken by the person who said that - to paraphrase - 'you either believe in god or you don't'. It certainly is a choice. If anyone reading this is interested in choosing to learn something more about the scientific method, its rationale, limitations, history, as well as exploring this artificial controversy between science and faith (i did not say 'religion') then I would recommend that you click on over to You Tube and look up the following channels: AaronRa, Thunderfoot, Andromeda's Wake. This recommendation comes with a warning. If you are utterly convinced that your religious book (whichever one you're reading) has all the answers you'll ever need and that your religious faith is without error then you will likely be offended by these videos. Therein you will hear in-depth explanations of the theory of evolution, the definition of a scientific theory (as opposed to the vernacular use of the word), logic and logical arguments, as well as numerous links to other subjects of study. It's simple to find and truly eye-opening. However, if you are not interested in learning about the subject matter that you seem so willing to bash then don't waste your time; just keep repeating the same cliches, and faulty logic all over the internet using your computer that, ironically, is a manifestation of the methodology which you so easily dismiss
    (more)
  • Heather Ekim 2011/04/20 17:11:07
    Heather
    +1
    I'd like to know how the computer is a "manifestation of the methodology which you so easily dismiss" are you speaking of evolution because the computer is not an evolution but rather an invention! It amazes me that the biggest argument i have heard from Scientists about the existence of God is that simply if you cannot hear, see, smell, taste, or feel him then he doesn't exist. It is a choice to believe in God however one day when this world comes to an end everyone will see the real truth regardless of what they have believed before! I have a strong notion to believe that all these scientists that are trying to disprove the existence of God have never read the bible or maybe only read bits and pieces of it. Where do you think the Bible came from? Do you think someone just decided one day to write a novel and call it the Bible and maybe people would believe it and live by it?? Not a chance!! The great thing about being a christian is that i don't NEED your scientific mumbo jumbo, yes science is something that we obviously need in the world but not when it comes to ones faith, science and faith have no place together. I don't need anything scientific to tell me that God exists, he is present in everything and most importantly present in my heart.
  • Jeff As... Heather 2011/12/15 07:54:28
    Jeff Asmussen
    Unfortunately reality spoils your notion that "one day when this world comes to an end everyone will see the real truth regardless of what they have believed before!" because when you die you won't have the ability to realise you had wasted your life on a bronze age superstition when you could have been a productive useful member of humanity. I certainly wholeheartedly wish that you would have the time and ability to think after your death so the last thought you had was "Damn! What a bloody waste of my life" but wishing it won't make it true. Just like your silly deity.
    You state "I don't need anything scientific to tell me that God exists," Well I accept the scientific and well researched opinions of the worlds Psychiatrists and Psychologists who know that religious beliefs and other superstitions are merely common delusions.
  • Alexander Jeff As... 2012/04/26 03:02:48
    Alexander
    +3
    Just to take this away from a strict argument on the science of some given thing (evolution/religion), lets expand into more "beliefs" outside this strict subject. So from your argument presented above you seem to think that some given being that worships a higher figure, which you are calling "God", is wasting their life away by doing so. I'm deriving that you are getting at this general statement from this quote: "think after your death so the last thought you had was "Damn! What a bloody waste of my life,"" correct me if this is not what you are saying. Instead you believe that given member of society should "have been a productive useful member of humanity." What exactly does this look like to you? Perhaps you mean advancing our society along even further, making new discoveries, etc. If this is what you mean, then what is the reasoning for all of these advancements? So that we can obtain more knowledge? More knowledge for what? To make the lives of those who live after you easier, more intelectual? From your above statements that I am replying to, that is, more or less, what you are saying. Perhaps you may throw in there that a productive member of society is a "good person", I don't know if you are throwing any, of what our society calls, "morals" into the definition of ...







    Just to take this away from a strict argument on the science of some given thing (evolution/religion), lets expand into more "beliefs" outside this strict subject. So from your argument presented above you seem to think that some given being that worships a higher figure, which you are calling "God", is wasting their life away by doing so. I'm deriving that you are getting at this general statement from this quote: "think after your death so the last thought you had was "Damn! What a bloody waste of my life,"" correct me if this is not what you are saying. Instead you believe that given member of society should "have been a productive useful member of humanity." What exactly does this look like to you? Perhaps you mean advancing our society along even further, making new discoveries, etc. If this is what you mean, then what is the reasoning for all of these advancements? So that we can obtain more knowledge? More knowledge for what? To make the lives of those who live after you easier, more intelectual? From your above statements that I am replying to, that is, more or less, what you are saying. Perhaps you may throw in there that a productive member of society is a "good person", I don't know if you are throwing any, of what our society calls, "morals" into the definition of a productive member of society. Regardless of what you seem to be the definition of a productive member of society, is is completely opinionated, as is the rest of the worlds definition they may give for a "productive member of society." So instead of basing your argument on a factual basis, you brought your opinion into the equation, therefore making 3/4 of what you said above of absolutely no value and we may as well call you a philosopher.
    Regardless of the fact you are making an argument based off your personal opinion, I am going to entertain that philosophy of yours. Now then, using your definition of a productive member of society, and the clear absence of a "higher power" in your life; I am assuming you believe that when we die, there is no after life, we are simply buried in the ground, or however our body is disposed of. First off, this is a mere belief of yours that you have. Again, if this is what you think happens when we die, it is nothing but an opinion, a guess, that you are making. Second off, you cannot prove that there is no higher power can you? I suppose you could present another philosophy of yours that you have, but you, nor I, can prove that there is not a higher power. Back to my earlier statement about your belief of there being no higher power. This would mean that our life has no ultimate purpose that was laid out for us. This would mean that when one die, it is the end of any type of existence for him/her. From the brief explanation I just gave, one may draw the conclusion that we are a mere accident, and really nothing special. This is what you may call evolution. If this is what you believe then to you we are simply mere, if you will, "animals" roaming around another lump of matter somewhere in space.
    If this is what you believe, then I feel sorry for you. You believe that we have no purpose, that we are just like a more intelligent version of the very animals that we eat. We just have a very short lifespan, and within that lifespan our job is to obtain as much knowledge as possible, to figure out the answers, so that other beings after us can continue the same path. Why would you choose to believe that? If you choose to respond to anything at all, please just answer that question. Is it because you believe you are right that our lives here are basically worthless, and that there is no life after death? Why would any living, intelligent, creature choose to believe that? This could be exampled by either believing you will die tomorrow, or believing you will continue on living tomorrow. Why would someone who has the ability to reason and think choose to believe they would die? Why wouldn't the instead believe they will continue living? That is terrible that this is the current darkness you are living, that is one sad existence for anyone to endure.
    In conclusion, hypothetically speaking, lets say you were given the following options:
    A) "Believe" in some given being, and you may possibly have eternal life.
    B) "Believe" in your own opinions, whatever you will call them, and regardless of if there is a higher power or not, when you die you will not be living eternal life.

    Now if you would not choose option "A" then that is not a very intelligent choice, and you are not using your reasoning skills that you possess correctly to select an option. Therefore, your opinion, or what you believe to be facts, on matters is truly of no value as your reasoning there may be quite flawed as well.
    If you select option "A" then you should use your "intelligence" that you possess to understand option "A" means believing in a higher power. If you choose not to accept a higher power, when you know that is what option A requires, then you are simply letting your personal pride get in the way of the clear rational decision. If your pride gets in the way of making the clear choice, then who knows what else your pride gets in the way of with of decision/statements of yours; yet again, this renders you with a worthless argument.
    (more)
  • Bubbie 2010/08/06 03:52:21
    None of the above
    Bubbie
    +2
    The ONLY thing that is FALSE about this dialog is that the student was NOT Albert Einstein. The student's response is right on. There is no such thing as 'darkness' other than it is just the absence of 'light', just as the rest of the facts are true. No, the very God and Creator did NOT create Evil, but gave humans the freedom of will and choice. Evil (or sin) came into this perfect world when man decided to do the ONE THING that God had forbidden. From that point on, mankind was broken spiritually and physically. But thanks be to God that He provided the one and only way to be restored and acceptable to Him, with the atonement of His precious Son, that whoever believes in Him and the one who sent Him, is now clothed in His righteousness and are justified, (just if i'd) never fell short of the perfection required by a Holy God. For we now live by the faith and grace given to us. It is a gift that nobody deserves, but those that have accepted this gift can do nothing BUT boast of our Lord. To live in the light of Christ, is to be absent from darkness of everlasting death.
  • Johnny ... Bubbie 2010/12/17 03:54:15
    Johnny DeAngelo
    +3
    amen my brother
  • Jeff As... Bubbie 2011/12/15 07:56:43
    Jeff Asmussen
    Your ability to believe that is no less incomprehensible to rational human beings than someone's belief they were Santa or Napoleon is to you.
  • SBD 2010/07/02 00:45:46
    None of the above
    SBD
    +1
    This story is a fabrication....a complete hoax.

    Even if it were true, by the metaphor set forth by the student....if cold is the ABSENCE of heat...and Evil the ABSENCE of Good...then God created the Universe as fundamentally Evil...and that His light fills it with Goodness. And so being, if Evil exists anywhere, that means God's light is not there, saying that He is not Omnipresent...weather willfully or not....The students arguments are flawed regardless...believe what you want to believe...but this story is a LIE!
  • Bedoodah SBD 2010/07/21 12:55:35
    Bedoodah
    +3
    Huge hole in your logic. two points. in the argument, evil is the absence of God, not good.
    Second, how do you jump from evil is the absence of good to God created the Universe as fundamentally Evil? Another example of your flaw would be:
    John is a man
    John is a plumber
    Therefore all men are plumbers.
    It is more accurate to say that God created the Universe as Good (look at how well things function in Nature), but Man chose to remove God from the equation, allowing Evil to occur.
  • Heather Bedoodah 2011/04/20 18:15:25
    Heather
    +1
    perfectly put!!
  • BOB SBD 2010/09/15 16:42:37
    BOB
    +3
    Pretty smart statement for a guy who can't spell whether. We all know the story is made up, Einstein wasn't the student. That being said though, you must be an atheist believer! Am i right?
  • Heather SBD 2011/04/20 18:14:43
    Heather
    +1
    This story is not true in the sense that it did not actually happen however the principles therein are totally true. The cold is in fact the absence of heat as you cannot measure cold and darkness IS the abscense of light. God created a perfect world, I'm going to quote some scripture here so be aware this comes from Genesis 1: 27
    27 So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.

    Then is Genesis 2:25 it says this:

    25 Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

    What happens next is when evil first entered this world and is the reason why there is good and evil now it happens in Genesis 3:5 after God had told Adam and Eve that that may eat any fruit in the garden but they may not partake of the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil then the serpent tells Eve this:

    5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked;...

    This story is not true in the sense that it did not actually happen however the principles therein are totally true. The cold is in fact the absence of heat as you cannot measure cold and darkness IS the abscense of light. God created a perfect world, I'm going to quote some scripture here so be aware this comes from Genesis 1: 27
    27 So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.

    Then is Genesis 2:25 it says this:

    25 Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

    What happens next is when evil first entered this world and is the reason why there is good and evil now it happens in Genesis 3:5 after God had told Adam and Eve that that may eat any fruit in the garden but they may not partake of the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil then the serpent tells Eve this:

    5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

    At this moment is when evil entered the world, or not so much evil itself but the knowledge of evil had they not eaten from that tree they would not have known there was a good or an evil, they didn't know before that they were naked they had no knowledge of shame. I believe that Gods light does fill you with goodness however because people choose not to believe in him or shun him away his light is not able to shine in them because they choose for it not too. Having God in your life is a free choice, if you choose not to invite him in he is still present but because you have not invited him to live in your heart his light cannot shine in your life! I hope this makes sense, you can read more in Genesis which explains alot by going to biblegateway.com
    (more)
  • Shannon Foote 2010/05/12 21:08:05
    The student made more sense
    Shannon Foote
    +1
    I have tried to verify this story. Snopes says that it is not true, but no one can really say that this discussion never took place. That being said, whoever wrote this story was right on track. Weather Einstein proved the perverbial "Atheist Professor" wrong or if it was just an illustration that someone misguidedly attempted to add validity to by using a well-known name, the fact of the matter is, God does exist and our children are being taught by people who believe just like this professor. That is the reason we are living in the world we live in. A world trying to completely do away with God....an "Evil" world if you will.

    I pray that those who read this will learn the lesson being taught, and not get caught up on who the actual participant may or may not have been.
  • SBD Shannon... 2010/07/02 01:00:43
    SBD
    +3
    There is NO lesson if what is being taught is a lie...Id be pretty concerned if you or anybody embraced this story knowing that the fundamental reason for its invention was to deceive.
  • Bubbie SBD 2010/08/06 04:11:32 (edited)
    Bubbie
    +3
    This is not logical. Aesops Fables are stories that teach a moral truth. Children have been taught that Christopher Columbus discovered America but he never even stepped FOOT in it. History has been re-written to suit the agenda of whoever wants to change it - Examples: that the Holocaust never really occured, that this Nation was NOT founded as a Christian Nation with Biblical morals and laws, that there is actually an amendment in our Constitution forcing the separation of Church and State. So why don't we remove these new History books from our schools?? I'd be pretty concerned for you or anybody that takes their last breathe in this tent of a body, without knowing the Lord. Then it will be too late when you are before the very Creator and Lord Himself, and you come to terms with the fact that you were wrong.
  • Heather SBD 2011/04/20 18:18:23
    Heather
    +3
    the fundamental reason for this story was not to deceive but rather form an illustration in which to better understand the fundamentals of faith and believing.
  • StefanM... Shannon... 2010/11/20 10:10:39
    StefanMatei
    +3
    the student is wrong on so many levels just like some mentioned. But the most important of it all is this in my opinion: Evil is the absence of God, and that man is inherently evil. Combined with this,we get the correct image of things:

    "Ideally, what should be said to every child, repeatedly, throughout his or her school life is something like this: 'You are in the process of being indoctrinated. We have not yet evolved a system of education that is not a system of indoctrination. We are sorry, but it is the best we can do. What you are being taught here is an amalgam of current prejudice and the choices of this particular culture. The slightest look at history will show how impermanent these must be. You are being taught by people who have been able to accommodate themselves to a regime of thought laid down by their predecessors. It is a self-perpetuating system. Those of you who are more robust and individual than others will be encouraged to leave and find ways of educating yourself — educating your own judgments. Those that stay must remember, always, and all the time, that they are being molded and patterned to fit into the narrow and particular needs of this particular society.' "
    — Doris Lessing (The Golden Notebook)

    Now imagine a person who doesn't know any of this, that isn't indoctrinated by everything. Is that person Evil?!...then why...and prove it.
  • Tom Braund 2009/07/05 17:19:21
    None of the above
    Tom Braund
    +1
    God vs Science
    The following has been attributed to Albert Einstein as the second student. He did not write this nor was he the student. Nothing in his writings mentions such an incident, nor in anyone else's writings. Throwing him in as an anchor proves nothing.

    Einstein believed in Spinoza's God, that everything was God, this science and God overlap.

    Faith is often defined as belief in something which cannot be proven. That is wrong. Because one person disbelieves the proof others offer does not disprove the testimony of the others. All faith has evidence to back it up, whether one believing can articulate that or not.

    Science today, at the Institute for Creation Research, is proving scientifically many things stated in the Bible. After all, God created this universe and everything in it. Therefore, all must comform to God's rules, since He made them. So, the only true science must therefore conclude that God is correct and all experiments, to have results that are true, must demonstrate God's correctness. If it doesn't, something's wrong somewhere.

    Don't believe that? Go to http://www.icr.org/God/ and read anything that interests you.

    On whether the student is evil, once you're chosen by God and saved by being given eternal life, by God's decree, you're holy and perfect. Your flesh is sti...

    ""

    '""'




    God vs Science
    The following has been attributed to Albert Einstein as the second student. He did not write this nor was he the student. Nothing in his writings mentions such an incident, nor in anyone else's writings. Throwing him in as an anchor proves nothing.

    Einstein believed in Spinoza's God, that everything was God, this science and God overlap.

    Faith is often defined as belief in something which cannot be proven. That is wrong. Because one person disbelieves the proof others offer does not disprove the testimony of the others. All faith has evidence to back it up, whether one believing can articulate that or not.

    Science today, at the Institute for Creation Research, is proving scientifically many things stated in the Bible. After all, God created this universe and everything in it. Therefore, all must comform to God's rules, since He made them. So, the only true science must therefore conclude that God is correct and all experiments, to have results that are true, must demonstrate God's correctness. If it doesn't, something's wrong somewhere.

    Don't believe that? Go to http://www.icr.org/God/ and read anything that interests you.

    On whether the student is evil, once you're chosen by God and saved by being given eternal life, by God's decree, you're holy and perfect. Your flesh is still evil, not your spirit. Your spirit is your relationship to God, holy or evil.

    On God creating Satan, actually, God created "Star of the morning, son of the dawn", a perfect angel (Isaiah 14:12-23; Ezekiel 28:11-19). That angel decided to execute a coup on God and take over the physical realm as its god. Therefore God threw this angel out of the third heaven to the earth, withing the first heaven, and changed his name to Satan. So, God did not create this evil being but a holy being who used his own decision to turn evil. He therefore is the epitome of evil.

    On God creating evil, God did not create evil, nor sin, but he defines them. God created every being in perfection. Satan, the demons, and man decide to do evil, not God. God's definition of evil is ungodliness. His definition of sin is "to miss the mark". The mark is defined in Leviticus 11:44-45, to be as holy as God is. Due to Adam's sin, and that we are his seed, all man misses the mark until Jesus saves him from the penalty for his sins, which is eternal separation from God and everyone else. Since we were created to glorify God in relationships, especially the one with Him, the worst punishment of hell is being utterly alone, forever. There are NO relationships in hell. Does Hell exist? No creation of it has ever been mentioned in the Bible. It is a place of no rememberance, nowhere, and filled with nothing but you, if you go there. There is no light in hell, no water, no relationships.

    On faith having no evidence, all faith is based on evidence. One may have that evidence and another deny it exists. God provides those whom He makes to be His with a special sense to see that evidence. But because another does not see it does not preclude its existence.

    Think about darkness and light for a moment. In light, you cannot produce darkness. In darkness, even the slightest light causes the darkness to flee from it.
    Tommy Braund
    (more)
  • Heather Tom Braund 2011/04/20 18:30:08
    Heather
    +2
    Again another brilliant insight, well said!
  • R 2009/05/10 18:31:46
    The student made more sense
    R
    +1
    tHE tRItH IS tHERE REALLY IS NOtHING tO ARGUE ABOUt. YOU EItHER BELIEVE IN GOD OR YOU DON't. 'GOD KNOWS tHOSE WHO ARE HIS'. I BELIVE IN JESUS AS MY PERSONAL LORD AND SAVIOUR AND NOtHING CAN CHANGE tHAt. NO PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENt OR ANYtHING ELSE BECAUSE MY RELAtIONSHIP WItH CHRISt JESUS IS BEtWEEN ME AND HIM. tHANK YOU
  • daylight 2009/04/14 01:41:51 (edited)
    The student made more sense
    daylight
    Some have felt Jesus in powerful ways,Mother Teresa had a powerful incounter with Jesus and then set out take care of the needy(He gave what she needed to do what He wanted and she yielded to the call) she saw him & she felt him I think she was 17 at the time?. felt jesus powerful waysmother teresa powerful incounter jesus care needyhe Jesus did say blessed is he who believe's and has not seen.
  • APO'ed Patriot 2009/04/12 04:38:48
    The student made more sense
    APO'ed Patriot
    Love it one of the smartest men the student was made complete sence even an idiot could figure that out Does not say much for our President and his godless followers. Its like it is easier to die than live its easier to be bad than good . and so on........ Faith is all I have and I have heard the spirits voice and he does exist . How do these people explain why people who have felt his presence can be brought to tears in the awe of his love all it takes is faith . An open heart an open ear and patience to hear what is needed . to not here what is wanted.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

Entertainment

2014/10/24 10:28:35

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals