Non sequitur
Wokest Bae Of The Forum
- Jul 2, 2011
- 4,532
- 541
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
The best evidence for Creationism
- Thread starter Wiccan_Child
- Start date
- Status
Davian
fallible
- May 30, 2011
- 14,100
- 1,181
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Ignostic
- Marital Status
- Married
But you could be demonstrably close enough to have some very useful scientific theories.
Asserting that you have the truth ≠ having the truth. Particularly in the absence of the ability to demonstrate that you have the truth.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,216
- 52,662
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
ΔH(Bible)=0
if the bible = 1/25 then,
ΔH(1/25)=0
ΔH 1/25=0
ΔH=25
You forgot to solve the equation.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
God shows us what He wants to show us. So we may as well sit back and relax and enjoy the ride.
Upvote
0
That has nothing to do with what I said.
Perhaps you want to ignore all information that has come to light since everything was believed to revolve around the Earth. Context is everything, please stay within it Norm.
Upvote
0
Split Rock
Conflation of Blathers
But you suggest he would then muck with the laws he created when dealing within the frame of his creation. This is a very small and imperfect god, who cannot forsee the consequences of his own creation.
Upvote
0
- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,281
- 8,501
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
There is no such thing as a "random" variable.
Though there are "seemingly" random variables.
A "random" variable is a temporary name or class of information
that you don't have all the details on. If you don't know the
conditions or causes, then it SEEMS random to you.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Keachian
On Sabbatical
Whoah, let's slow down here and not make false dichotomies. If we believe the Bible's primary purpose is to recount history from creation through to revelation then where's the stuff about the here and now? If however the Bible's primary purpose is to reveal God and his purpose for humanity culminating in the death burial and resurrection of the Christ and the hope he has promised us for new life, then I hardly see how evolution is denied or even relevant to the Bible and its truth claims.
As St. Augustine is quoted as saying, if our interpretation of Holy Scripture does not agree with science then it is our interpretation and not Scripture or science that needs throwing out. St. Paul also calls us to study to show ourselves able to handle scripture well, and to test everything and hold fast to that which is good. I think a lot of the studying and testing includes understanding how the ancient Israelites would have likely understood scripture and quite frankly I don't think they would have been bothered by evolutionary theory and probably would have accepted it.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,216
- 52,662
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
If all truth is is 'better accuracy,' then I think I'll just wait until it catches up to The Truth.
Upvote
0
With waiting no work is done. So even "the truth" will never be reached. In the mean time, many men and women are working hard to make this planet a better place to live on.
Upvote
0
I don't think many people are calling god a liar. I do call creationists liars. And all the prietsts, pastors, rabbis, immams, popes and other clergy. There is no god, so he canr't be a liar. The liars are the ones who utter creationist nonsens hiding behind an imaginary god.
Upvote
0
The problem is they have created a huge smoke screen. There are lots of things they call evolution that has nothing to do with evolution. This was a problem that Abraham confronted in his day. You have science and error mixed together. That is why God told Abraham to "Come out from among them". Isreal then and now the Church today are called out: (Isa 52:11) Of course many are called but few are choosen. Few, maybe 10% respond to that call. They are the ones that are willing to be washed and cleansed, Holy & Sanctified before God.
Depart! Depart! Go out from there,
Touch no unclean thing;
Go out from the midst of her,
Be clean,
You who bear the vessels of the Lord.
Upvote
0
- Mar 21, 2005
- 19,419
- 673
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
Darla1215, it's clear you just copy-and-pasted much of your post from other sites without citation, primarily heritagebbc, so I'll provide the citations so everyone can be fully informed. In future, you might want to include such links yourself, as a) we're not stupid, we will find out, and b) your position is undermined by such blatant lying and plagiarism.
By their fruits...
All fantastic phenomena, none of which pose a problem for evolution.
Birds got their wings from arboreal lizards which jumped from tree to tree. Many such species develop flaps of skin which grants them the rudimentary ability to glide - from there, better gliding leads inevitably to true flight. The bird got its wing from its reptilian ancestor's arms.
Where did the fish get its fins? The evolution of fins is linked with the evolution of gills: broad protrusions that increased surface area, thus vastly improving filter feeding. By webbing these together, you get fins. By increasing blood flow, you get gills.
You pose these questions like they're insurmountable obstacles, yet in reality they're just interesting, and, more importantly, they have answers.
Like the whale's lung? Like the mammal's inverted retina? Like the placement of the human trachea and oesophagus? These speak of our ancestry, and make complete sense in light of evolution. In Creationism, they can only be explained as an ineffable mystery.
Because it could survive before, and each step was a small improvement on the last. At no point were arachnoid ancestors left 'dangling', as it were. Weaving webs began with simply exuding fluid from the rear end, a sticky residue used to protect the proto-spiders' eggs. Over successive generations, this evolved into a long, stable, sticky fibres, and eventually into the modern webs we see today.
Successive steps, each a small improvement on the last.
[Source, p.51]
That is incorrect - there are other ways to get into trees besides flight. The ancestors of the birds were arboreal, and could easily climb trees with their claws (which still exist on birds today). Many dinosaurs were feathered, which both kept them warm and gave them a sexual advantage. These early, feathered, arboreal creatures also lept from tree to tree, which their feathers aided, thus pushing them towards modern feathers (i.e., adapted for flight, rather than warmth). Gliding eventually gave way to true flight.
Successive steps, each an improvement on the last.
Through the abundance of food elsewhere. Most modern mammalian infants rely exclusively on milk, but there's no reason why ancestral mammals had to - a diet of plant or animal materials, which gave way to a regular diet supplemented by milk, which gave way to one with only milk. Don't forget that mammary glands evolved from sweat glands, which could happily evolve without troubling the infants.
Actually, there has.
Because those traits were not present in the common ancestor we share with (say) the eagle. After that ancestral species split into daughter and grand-daughter species, then eagles evolved their eyes. Humans never had the need to; our eyes are developed for our close ancestor's hunter-gatherer lifestyle, not an eagle's.
By their fruits...
[Source, p.15]
The Bible is only mutually exclusive with evolution if you a) interpret Genesis literally, and b) accept Ussher's chronology.
[Source; however, this is such a commonly parroted Creationist lie that I don't know which site you got it from first]
All fantastic phenomena, none of which pose a problem for evolution.
Please show us the maths.
[Source, p. 43]
Birds got their wings from arboreal lizards which jumped from tree to tree. Many such species develop flaps of skin which grants them the rudimentary ability to glide - from there, better gliding leads inevitably to true flight. The bird got its wing from its reptilian ancestor's arms.
Where did the fish get its fins? The evolution of fins is linked with the evolution of gills: broad protrusions that increased surface area, thus vastly improving filter feeding. By webbing these together, you get fins. By increasing blood flow, you get gills.
You pose these questions like they're insurmountable obstacles, yet in reality they're just interesting, and, more importantly, they have answers.
Like the whale's lung? Like the mammal's inverted retina? Like the placement of the human trachea and oesophagus? These speak of our ancestry, and make complete sense in light of evolution. In Creationism, they can only be explained as an ineffable mystery.
[Source]
Because it could survive before, and each step was a small improvement on the last. At no point were arachnoid ancestors left 'dangling', as it were. Weaving webs began with simply exuding fluid from the rear end, a sticky residue used to protect the proto-spiders' eggs. Over successive generations, this evolved into a long, stable, sticky fibres, and eventually into the modern webs we see today.
Successive steps, each a small improvement on the last.
[Source, p.51]
That is incorrect - there are other ways to get into trees besides flight. The ancestors of the birds were arboreal, and could easily climb trees with their claws (which still exist on birds today). Many dinosaurs were feathered, which both kept them warm and gave them a sexual advantage. These early, feathered, arboreal creatures also lept from tree to tree, which their feathers aided, thus pushing them towards modern feathers (i.e., adapted for flight, rather than warmth). Gliding eventually gave way to true flight.
Successive steps, each an improvement on the last.
[Source, p.51]
Through the abundance of food elsewhere. Most modern mammalian infants rely exclusively on milk, but there's no reason why ancestral mammals had to - a diet of plant or animal materials, which gave way to a regular diet supplemented by milk, which gave way to one with only milk. Don't forget that mammary glands evolved from sweat glands, which could happily evolve without troubling the infants.
On the contrary, Jesus often spoke in parable, and his use of it is remarked upon in the Bible itself. There's also no reason why you have to accept it all as literal truth, especially when the abundance of evidence points against such an interpretation.
Actually, there has.
[Source, p.56]
Because those traits were not present in the common ancestor we share with (say) the eagle. After that ancestral species split into daughter and grand-daughter species, then eagles evolved their eyes. Humans never had the need to; our eyes are developed for our close ancestor's hunter-gatherer lifestyle, not an eagle's.
Upvote
0
Keachian
On Sabbatical
I disagree that any creationist actually interprets Genesis literally, they do a surface read and don't put any more effort into it than that, while this is fine for a lay believer who is more interested in the cross, for someone who centers their apologia around origins you would hope that they would investigate deeper into the cultural context and strong imagery in the narrative, both of which are essential imo to a literal reading of Genesis.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
