I have been reading some of the recent threads and it is evident that many people are "missing the boat," so to speak. Seems that a lot of poeple are trying to prove the Bible(although no one has disproven ANY statement, event, point in the Bible) is true using scientific means. God created everything including science. Who can understand the mind of God. God is greater than science. Who can truely understand the eternal nature of God. It is beyond science as we know it. I think I am getting off the subject as little. I believe in creation 100%. 0% in evolution. There is nothing man can do to earn heaven. All men are sinners and fall short of the glory of God. We can't believe in Him by our own means(trying to prove the existence of God or prove the Bible is the enerrant word of God through scientific means). The Holy Spirit comes to us. He chooses us. He gives us faith. Faith is a gift from God, period. If God(Holy Spirit) hasn't chosen you and given you faith to believe in Him then you (man) simply can't. Read the Bible because God works through the Bible and creates faith in mans heart. It is Gods desire that all men come to faith and enter heaven and live with Him eternally. Remember God Is LOVE!!!
-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
Creationish Vs Evolutionism? BE POLITE!
- Thread starter Chris Pierce
- Start date
- Status
wait... what? The earth is not flat.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2003
- Messages
- 2,315
Klok, I recommend you not even try. There are people who are so invested in accepting the bible as true that no amount of evidence is good enough to show them that it's not a historically accurate account.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2009
- Messages
- 13,240
Please tell, what scientific means they are using.
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2006
- Messages
- 2,097
Im not criticizing science and giving religion a pass. When religion trespasses into the proper domain of science, it must play by the rules of science.
Its worth bearing in mind that many early scientists were priests, or were working for the church. Since this thread is about evolution, has anybody heard of Mendel?
Four hundred years of scientific and industrial revolution have actually improved Christianity. Before science held the churchs feet to the fire, Christendom was operating at the moral level of the Taliban. One of the Churchs favorite logical fallacies was the Argumentum ad baculum. Believe me or Ill club you into submission. Modern Christians fiddle with stuff like fundamentalism because they can no longer get away with the auto-da-fe and the pogrom.
^No disagreement here. The Catholic Church used to be a huge patron of the sciences, as were several Islamic governments.
No. Anything not subject to scientific methodology is an opinion, not a truth or a reality.
You don't detect the being itself, you detect the affect it has on the universe. (E.g, black holes popping up out of nowhere.) So far, we haven't found anything that would suggest the presence of a deity. (Aside from the Big Bang itself, of course, which remains unexplained.)
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2013
- Messages
- 8,331
It's a hotly debated subject have you folks seen this? http://www.policymic.com/articles/2...ill-ruled-unconstitutional-by-louisiana-court the whole subject is being debated in Louisiana's courts.
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2013
- Messages
- 3,809
Raymond1000 - I think you and I are largely in agreement.
Many early scientists (well post greek/roman/chinese ones) were in the employ of the church, mostly because there were not many viable options to gain literacy or find a library, etc. - nor had science progressed to a point that evidence based understandings could account for many of the things that support supernatural explanations in the first place - being atheist was a nearly unreasonable position up until relatively recently.
And things are definitely better now that the church is not actively persecuting and executing scientists (at least in the west). Yay for improvement. Let's keep at it.
Many early scientists (well post greek/roman/chinese ones) were in the employ of the church, mostly because there were not many viable options to gain literacy or find a library, etc. - nor had science progressed to a point that evidence based understandings could account for many of the things that support supernatural explanations in the first place - being atheist was a nearly unreasonable position up until relatively recently.
And things are definitely better now that the church is not actively persecuting and executing scientists (at least in the west). Yay for improvement. Let's keep at it.
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2006
- Messages
- 2,097
Let us agree to disagree.
I wouldnt want to be the physicist who proposed it. Nether his reputation nor his career would survive. Science has its own shibboleths.
Not if he had the extraordinary evidence necessary to back up his extraordinary claims.
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2006
- Messages
- 2,097
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2006
- Messages
- 4,837
Maybe irrefutable evidence would be a more correct term? That's what I think of when I hear an extraordinary claim. If some one is saying something that is contrary to generally accepted 'facts' then irrefutable evidence is what I look for, whether it is ordinary or not.
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2009
- Messages
- 2,696
I don't know how Dawkins had enough composure to not laugh the entire time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo&feature=youtube_gdata_player
The beauty of science is that we are not scared to say when we were wrong. The hilarity of intelligent design debaters is that they will latch on to any little inaccuracy as proof that evolution is a lie.
Like this lady's pig tooth "evidence". A scientist says "Wow, that tooth that we thought belonged to an ancient human, actually just belonged to a pig. Does this affect our theory at all? Well by looking at the massive amount of data that shows we evolved from something else, of course it doesn't disprove our theory. It only disproves itself a being used as evidence."
And apparently the creationist says. "Ha! They were totally wrong about that pig tooth, and there were some other fossil inconsistencies too! instead of weighing all the evidence, I'm going to latch onto these few things they got wrong, and offer up no evidence of my own."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo&feature=youtube_gdata_player
The beauty of science is that we are not scared to say when we were wrong. The hilarity of intelligent design debaters is that they will latch on to any little inaccuracy as proof that evolution is a lie.
Like this lady's pig tooth "evidence". A scientist says "Wow, that tooth that we thought belonged to an ancient human, actually just belonged to a pig. Does this affect our theory at all? Well by looking at the massive amount of data that shows we evolved from something else, of course it doesn't disprove our theory. It only disproves itself a being used as evidence."
And apparently the creationist says. "Ha! They were totally wrong about that pig tooth, and there were some other fossil inconsistencies too! instead of weighing all the evidence, I'm going to latch onto these few things they got wrong, and offer up no evidence of my own."
Esav Benyamin
MidniteSuperMod
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2000
- Messages
- 90,915
By definition, nothing in science is irrefutable. It may be irrefutable in a limited sense. Newton's gravity, for example, explained correctly what people had been seeing. Einstein came along and showed that Newton's gravity was a special case, true only within an encompassing local field.
You know the saying, the difference between theory and practice is that in theory there is no difference, but in practice there is. Not so much Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, but life is messy. A mutation here, disease vector there, accidental injury.
Some years ago, the American Museum of Natural History cajoled the custodians of the great fossil humans and precursors and arranged a collection for invited paleoanthropologists to inspect them all together. I was outraged that they didn't insist on my presence as well!
When in doubt, turn to the original source documents, in this case, the fossils themselves. These were the most knowledgeable investigators and theoreticians, seeing all of the most significant relics at once, for the first time. They knew the photographs, casts, and measurements were not the kind of information that informed their own knowledge. Touching and seeing the fossils in person was an irreplaceable experience.
In this thread we are discussing religion and science. Few on either side will have had a profound spiritual or intellectually productive experience in either field. Many of us have engaged in serious interest and study, perhaps in both. A common injunction in both is "humility".
And both may look up, reach out, and touch the heavens.
You know the saying, the difference between theory and practice is that in theory there is no difference, but in practice there is. Not so much Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, but life is messy. A mutation here, disease vector there, accidental injury.
Some years ago, the American Museum of Natural History cajoled the custodians of the great fossil humans and precursors and arranged a collection for invited paleoanthropologists to inspect them all together. I was outraged that they didn't insist on my presence as well!
When in doubt, turn to the original source documents, in this case, the fossils themselves. These were the most knowledgeable investigators and theoreticians, seeing all of the most significant relics at once, for the first time. They knew the photographs, casts, and measurements were not the kind of information that informed their own knowledge. Touching and seeing the fossils in person was an irreplaceable experience.
In this thread we are discussing religion and science. Few on either side will have had a profound spiritual or intellectually productive experience in either field. Many of us have engaged in serious interest and study, perhaps in both. A common injunction in both is "humility".
And both may look up, reach out, and touch the heavens.
Haven't posted in a while, and this most likely is not going to be a good thread to do so on, but I feel I must.
The new testament of the bible as most of you know it, is a rewrite done in the 1600s. This itself was a rewrite, of a rewrite of a rewrite. This first collection of stories about the land Jesus Christ did not appear in written form until some centuries after his death. What is more, the collection of stories known as the bible share archetypes with countless other religions that predate it. I'm a big fan of Occam's razor, simplest solution being the best. Does it not make sense that religious authorities simply panned together a bunch of old stuff, re-branded as new stuff to sell to people who don't want to think to hard on the subject? Rather than an all powerful being making his/her will known through countless divine documents to assorted people's?
The earth is around 4 6 billion years old. Fact. (Or approximation thereof, give or take a tenth of a billion years). Try to wrap you head around how long of a time period that is. Dinosaurs were around for much longer than us, and Jesus did not ride a trex. Whatever translation of the bible you follow, it makes no mention of fossil records, because the people who wrote it had no idea about that sort of thing. Science is not a religion it's just a way of looking at things. With the scientific method we know how old a fossil is, pretty close. And six days and a few thousand years does not explain the fossil record.
Speaking of fossils, what about earlier humans? Looking at fossil record you can follow the progression of the devlopment of our species. It's fairly evident that we have come a long way. So this whole made of clay thing doesn't hold much water for me.
I could go on, but I'm on me iPhone and texting is a pain on me eyes. (Which are smaller than our cousins the nenandrathralls, giving me the ability to have his discussion!). If you have further questions pm me. I celebrate life, and respect it to the fullest, all the more so due it's fragility and extreme good fortune for possessing the quality of life to begin with. 0
The new testament of the bible as most of you know it, is a rewrite done in the 1600s. This itself was a rewrite, of a rewrite of a rewrite. This first collection of stories about the land Jesus Christ did not appear in written form until some centuries after his death. What is more, the collection of stories known as the bible share archetypes with countless other religions that predate it. I'm a big fan of Occam's razor, simplest solution being the best. Does it not make sense that religious authorities simply panned together a bunch of old stuff, re-branded as new stuff to sell to people who don't want to think to hard on the subject? Rather than an all powerful being making his/her will known through countless divine documents to assorted people's?
The earth is around 4 6 billion years old. Fact. (Or approximation thereof, give or take a tenth of a billion years). Try to wrap you head around how long of a time period that is. Dinosaurs were around for much longer than us, and Jesus did not ride a trex. Whatever translation of the bible you follow, it makes no mention of fossil records, because the people who wrote it had no idea about that sort of thing. Science is not a religion it's just a way of looking at things. With the scientific method we know how old a fossil is, pretty close. And six days and a few thousand years does not explain the fossil record.
Speaking of fossils, what about earlier humans? Looking at fossil record you can follow the progression of the devlopment of our species. It's fairly evident that we have come a long way. So this whole made of clay thing doesn't hold much water for me.
I could go on, but I'm on me iPhone and texting is a pain on me eyes. (Which are smaller than our cousins the nenandrathralls, giving me the ability to have his discussion!). If you have further questions pm me. I celebrate life, and respect it to the fullest, all the more so due it's fragility and extreme good fortune for possessing the quality of life to begin with. 0
Codger_64
Moderator
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2004
- Messages
- 62,324
That is one perspective, as seen through your metaphorical eyes and experience. There are others, equally as valid to those that hold them.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2009
- Messages
- 13,240
It was worth it just to hear her say that mammals evolved from birds. :applouse:
I just love the conspiracy reasoning though. Because no scientist would want to put their name on the paper that puts Darwin in his place so they could make lots of money and be famous, no way, not ever going to happen, every biologist in the world is too dedicated to the conspiracy to publish a paper like that. That's why no scientists ever try to disprove relativity, because it's not every physicists dream to say that they were smarter than Einstein.
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2009
- Messages
- 2,696
Did you watch part 2? Right at the start he offers up proof and she immediately changes the subject, or says the proof isn't conclusive enough. Apparently she would be happy only if there was security camera footage showing primordial ooze transforming into a human.... Unfortunately her two main problems are the same in many creationist mindsets. Complete lack of understanding of how and why scientists say evolution happened, and inability to objectively weigh the evidence. So their main arguments are trying to refute things that actually have no part in evolution.
Since I am a huge cynic, I'll say that looking at any of the evidence on it's own comes nowhere near "proving" evolution. However, when you look at the body of evidence of geology, biology, fossils, dna, archeology, etc... it narrows it down to where the over arcing theory of evolution is pretty irrefutable.
Since I am a huge cynic, I'll say that looking at any of the evidence on it's own comes nowhere near "proving" evolution. However, when you look at the body of evidence of geology, biology, fossils, dna, archeology, etc... it narrows it down to where the over arcing theory of evolution is pretty irrefutable.
Fact: new testament was not written until a couple centuries after the man Jesus Christ expired. Fact: the bible, new and old testaments, contain stories that share a very large number of similarities with a large number of religions that predate Christianity by some time. Fact: the earth is 4.6/7 billion years old. Fact: Dinosaurs (no specific species) were around for much longer than humans in any form. Fact: Jesus Christ did not ride a T.Rex. Fact: Fossil records can tell us how old a biological sample is based upon several different methods of detection. Fact: Neanderthals had bigger eyes than us. Fact: homo sapiens evolved from previous species from the homo genus.
If I were to choose an imaginary friend to believe in, I would choose the Norse gods. Jesus was nailed to a cross, Thor wields a hammer. Jesus knew he was the son of god, and cried out "why have you forsaken me?" after one day. Odin hung on the tree for 9 days and gave his eye. If you want imaginary friends, choose the bad-a$$ ones.
I must say that I do respect the Christian values however. They are good rules for a just, stable society. Respect your elders, do no steal, rape, or murder, be upright and truthful. Turning your other cheek I have trouble with, but revenge does not produce a stable society so I see why it was included. Give charitably, and try not to accumulate wealth but to help fellow man. These are all good things. I just wish that the Christians I see on a day to day basis would follow these mandates. Instead I see so called Christians decry the "welfare state", resent the poor and disenfranchised, disrespect the elders by shoving them into nursing homes, and send the young to an injust war (well Afghanistan was a right thing but they did it all wrong). If you Christians would act like Christ, a long haired hippy, I would totally support you no matter how deluded I find your beliefs. Instead I see you use your church as a money grabbing scheme (case in point the Catholic church-their coffers filled with blood). Instead the vast majority of you profane the teachings of your church.
I apologize if I have offended any of you. I do not mean to do so, but I feel it necessary to show you how the majority of you are seen in the eyes of my generation. I am not a bad person, in fact I follow a good many of your tenements due to the fact that I believe it right to do so. The only difference between me and you is that I believe it right to treat my fellow man as I would wish to be treated rather than on promise of how I will be treated in the after life.
- Status