"Christ as Son of God is just a theory."

[OrlandoGator]

Try that in your next evolution argument, see what happens. Ask for supporting evidence.

[Warpy]

1. A caveat:

Make sure your health and life insurance both equal the lavish packages available to Congress. You'll need them.

[HughBeaumont]

24. And in that case, THEY'LL soon learn that

"liberal" does not equal "pacifist".

[K-W]

2. A poorly supported, famously unsuccessful theory.

The opposite of evolution an extremely well supported famously successful theory.

[Walt Starr]

3. Actually, that's innacurate. It does not even rise to the level of

Hypothesis.

[Solly Mack]

4. what Walt said

[XemaSab]

37. The null is

that Christ is not the son of God.... so far we have failed to reject the null, after 2000 years of research on this topic.

[Cyrano]

5. I agree. I tested it out by praying this morning, but nothing happened.

Of course, one test like mine isn't conclusive. I will therefore go on praying every morning, (for a winning lotto ticket, a date with J. Lo, a nice light rainy day, etc.), and see what happens.

At some point, I hope to have enough data to do a paper on "The Theory of Christianity."

[XemaSab]

38. I prayed for a rainy day

and so far I have an overcast and muggy day..... possible weak correlation?

[Brianboru]

6. That Christ is God is a theory. Christianity is real.

1.3 Billion people believe something that can't be proven.

[OrlandoGator]

7. Indeed, thanks for clarifying what I meant.

n/t

[Taxloss]

10. Can't be proven, or even demonstrated.

And yet somehow atheism is the thing that has to "prove itself" to address some "problem". The problem is a collapsing logical fallacy.

[OrlandoGator]

8. I'm alternating between this one and "Gravity is just a theory too"

Both seem to stump the fundies equally. Not that that's an accomplishment.

[Solly Mack]

11. Gravity is a law...not a theory

I'm just saying.

I fully understand your point..but it's Newton's Law of Gravity.

[Walt Starr]

13. Although still referred to as "law"

Science considers theory the highest level to which an idea can be elevated.

Thus, there is no distinction between a theory and a law.

[Solly Mack]

15. I understand that...but for the sake of the evolution argument

it's best to, in my opinion, to know the difference between hypothesis, theory ..and why something is called law...

thats my only point.

on edit:

You know, it would be better to have all text books say "Theory of Gravity"...I've seen it as both(law & theory)....but stating "theory" only....might cause the light bulb to go off for those who doubt evolution. Does that make sense?

[Cyrano]

17. Actually, the law of gravity can be put to the test. It would be

interesting to see how many fundies would be willing to jump from roof tops to help dispute this law. I wonder if Pat Robertson or James Dobson would run adds to help us find volunteers.

[Solly Mack]

19. Exactly...

and you can also "see" evolution...

my only point is...if all text books stated the "theory of gravity"...would fundies then see "theory" for what it is..instead of constantly using it as "I believe"...when, as you know, theory is well beyond the "I believe" stage (as it pertains to science)

[zipplewrath]

21. I go further

Theories, laws, hypotheses, these are things of science, not faith. I don't see how helping to confuse the two serves either. Science does not seek to replace faith, nor even supplement it. It seeks its own path regardless of faith. That faith and science occasionally cross paths when attempting to understand the same earthly phenomenon is unavoidable, but does not mean that one must be set against the other. When the two do not agree, there should be no surprise. Anymore than there is surprise that two travelers, departing from different cities, headed to different destinations, happen to cross paths that that ultimately diverge.

This conflict, like so many, has caused words to be confused, and abused.

Belief does not equal theory.

"Just" as a modifier of theory is an oxymoron. A theory is a lofty accomplishment. It conforms to observations and has predictive value. There is no "just" about it. Within the realm of this conversation, only "laws" achieve a loftier status. Would you
say "just a gold medal winner" because they didn't set a world
record? You surely wouldn't make a comparison and say "he's just a gold medal winner, but this young up and comer is the real deal". Theories must be consistent with laws, and those that aren't are forever suspicious until the lack of consistency is explained.

A hypothesis is not a theory. It is a bit more serious than an assertion because it should be "testable" even if only through "thought experiments". But ultimately, any hypothesis which is not testable is pretty useless.

An assertion is the beginning of a hypothesis. "Life is too complex to have been formed by chance" is an assertion. A hypothesis would be something along the line of "complexity can never be increased after the period of creation".

[Solly Mack]

23. Thank you!

[trekbiker]

31. Excellent!!!!

thanks. I'm saving your explanation for future reference

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. A pretty shaky one at that. Virgin birth? Risen from the dead?

Walking on water? Loaves and fishes?

As an agnostic, I'm an admirer of Jesus and his teachings (the ones undistorted by Paul and the gang), but the stories are a bit hard to swallow for anyone with a functioning brain.

"The bible is a book with some beautiful poetry, a blood stained history, a wealth of obscenity, and upwards of 10000 lies." - Mark Twain

[Brianboru]

14. If you believe the God thing, everything else is easy.

I still struggle with the where everything came from question. I find it hard to believe the Big Bang. How could the entire universe be contained in a spot the size of the head of a pin?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. Fascinating, isn't it?

I find it impossible to "comprehend". Of course, the size of this universe is beyond comprehension. Even more, other universes. Or, infinity.

Or, the idea that we pipsqueeks could ever comprehend such things. Let alone a *God* who is personally concerned and gets upset about my sex life.

[Brianboru]

26. If you haven't already, read Hawkings "A brief history of time"

I like the newer one with the pictures. Hawking is no pipsqueak.

And if I were God, I would only be concerned if you weren't having a GREAT sex life! That's why he created it, Right?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. *He*? Does he have a navel? If so, what for?

Another one of those durn incomprehensibles. I attempted "A Brief History.." but got infinitely bored, not to mention bewildered.

When it comes down to it, what difference does it make? Here we are stuck on an insignificant planet, in a mediocre galaxy, in one of what is possibly an infinite number of universes. Trying to figure it all out is somewhat like "What is the sound of one hand clapping?". Interesting, but pointless. Which, of course, IS the point.

If Hawking, or anyone else, were to somehow figure it all out, then what? Kind of like knowing that the sun is going to expand in a few billion years and barbecue the planet....if it doesn't get blown to bits by some stray asteroid beforehand.

[XemaSab]

39. What trips me out

(because the Big Bang is too much stuff to trip out on) is that what we perceive as solid matter is mostly totally empty space.

[Brianboru]

44. Right. I'm surprised we just don't fall apart, or pass through things.

[XemaSab]

45. Or that you can hit something hard enough to really hurt

That solid objects are actually REALLY SOLID.

[IrateCitizen]

12. It's not even a theory. It's a story.

Just like "intelligent design" is a story.

And please note, I say all of this as someone who identifies himself as a Protestant Christian. ;-)

[TahitiNut]

22. Indeed. Unless the outcome of some as yet untested or unobserved ...

... phenomenon is predicted, it does not rise to the level of 'theory.' Science is, if nothing else, utilitarian. A 'theory' must be subject to empirical testing (i.e. experimentation) or predict the existence of some as yet unobserved phenomonon.

[Shell Beau]

33. So as a Christian, do you believe Jesus is the Son of God?

Really, I am just curious! Or is it a moral story to you?

[DireStrike]

16. I think this is a losing argument

Technically it isn't even a theory. But the point is, if you give it the same scientific validity of evolution, you've lost. Then there's no reason not to teach them alongside each other.

The point is that there's little to no evidence supporting the idea of that plop-down creation. It's bad science to teach things like that as science.

What we need is more religion classes. As you discuss religion, you come to terms with it. Either you believe it, or you don't.

[gordianot]

18. Religion is a belief never a theory. In this case a religious doctrine.

Study the Council of Nicea if you want to find the source of the Trinity doctrine.

I have no problem with religious beliefs as long as they are not interjected into Government or pretend to be Science.

[cestpaspossible]

20. NO, because you are then equating evolution with an article of faith

which it isn't, it's science. And there is plenty of supporting evidence.

[heidler1]

30. Being both an Atheist and a cynic it appears to me that life style

gets involved. The Bible puts man as dominate and all other creatures and plants are just here to serve mankind's needs and desires. It is now imperative that there has to be be a end as to us needing the Earth to furnish these needs and desires, thus the Rapture.

Global Warming tends to point out that the interconnectedness of Earth is bound to be troubling any thinking persons faith in the notion that what we are doing is sustainable. It also points out the weakness (NO INTELLIGENT DESIGN) of man when it comes to altering harmful habits. More lack of intelligent design.

The position of the Christian Church that new born life is sacred so abortion is out, but destroying the environment of our one and only Earth and thus likely causing early mass death for all of us later in life is OK. This is pretty damn stupid. I'd call it Jim Jones in slow motion coupled with a lack of intelligent design.

IMO Bush came along and is guarding the door to keep reality at bay for a little while longer.

[johnaries]

28. I still like the answer given in "Oh, God!"

Q: "Was Jesus your son?"
A: "Jesus was my son. Buddha was my son. Ghandi was my son. You are my son. Next question."

[DARE to HOPE]

29. Anybody watch Keith O last night?

SCIENCE is now telling us that those who attend church on a regular basis are likely to live on average 25% longer than those who do not. Make of that what you will.

[Ms. Clio]

32. That doesn't necessarily have anything to do with God or Jesus

or anything mystical at all.

It is almost certainly due to regular church-goers having more connections with more people; wider networks of support and assistance. Just as married men tend to live longer than divorced men, who may be estranged from their children and other relatives, as well.

[Generator]

36. Yes but how much of that extra life span

Is spent in church hearing about hell, or evil liberals, or even just boring ridiculous dogma. I'll take my 75% spent in sin, thank you very much.

[oneighty]

41. What kind of "SCIENCE"

is saying that? I wonder.

180

[Jacobin]

34. More like a myth than a 'theory', but what the hay

[mitchum]

35. Jesus of Nazareth as a delusional schizophrenic is the one...

I like to throw out to them. Even when I say that he was well-intentioned, they don't seem to be mollified.

[cestpaspossible]

46. tell me more

[tk2kewl]

40. he must be the son of god, his mom is a virgin

how else could he have come to be?

[megatherium]

42. Let us unpack this theory.

Christ was male, or so we are told. As a male, he would have had a Y chromosome from this father, and an X chromosome from his mother the Blessed Virgin Mary. But his father was not human, his father was God. So Jesus lacked the Y chromosome; therefore he cannot have been male. Actually Jesus would have had only half the usual set of chromosomes, since he only had the chromosomes he received from his human mother. Biologists refer to this condition as "haploid". I understand that's what the H stands for in the name Jesus H. Christ.

edited: typo.

[TrogL]

43. It's well documented

[arendt]

47. How do you think Unitarianism happened?...

They looked at the Bible and found no evidence that
there god was a trinity. They decided Jesus was just
a man used by god.

Look it up. Its all in the history of Protestant
religion.

arendt

[Finder]

48. I just tell them Jesus never existed.

Keeps them busy and there is NO proof at all. Most people who argue evolution know jack shit about science or history or religion for that matter.

Funny thing is, if they come back with "proofs" they are usually obscure, disputed and few. Their argument on the fossil record can no longer be used.(not that it is the truth.)