medical students boycotting lectures on evolution

[Tomk80]

Say it ain't so

I know, shocking isn't it.

 

[Tomk80]

I'm flattered.

 

[razeontherock]

I'm sorry, but I don't see what the point would be.

Well if you were to view my alluded to thread, you would know.

I am going to assume (and apologize if my assumption is incorrect) that you believe that a person who no longer believes, never really believed in the first place. That God would not allow this to happen.

Apology accepted

This would be a nifty place for me to insert a link to that thread. (Unfortunately, this website doesn't make it all that easy to find.)

I won't guarantee you would find it interesting, nor that you'd have interesting input for it, nor that you'd want to even if you did. I do think you'd get past this particular preconception if you read the OP though:

In my time on CF, I've encountered and engaged many who profess to have been Christian in the past, and no longer are. I hope to see input from all of you ...

There are a good number of issues within the scope of this topic and I won't try to spell them all out in the OP, but generally I'm interested in the common ground between such people, (as well as their differences) and what makes them different from those of us who keep the Faith.

Further, I don't pretend to know how any of this works in an individual I've never met, and am primarily interested for my own efforts, to not fall away. Sometimes I wonder if it's really all just as simple as merely wanting to serve G-d, or not.

If that is the case, then you can manufacture a reason for ANY person who no longer believes as never having believed in the first place.

Which might be why I don't accept that interpretation of Scripture as having manufactured that reason? Anyway, I haven't seen this thread here address the thread title, so I don't feel it's possible to further de-rail anything

We might take it to a different sub-forum and it's own thread though?

 

[46AND2]

Well if you were to view my alluded to thread, you would know.



Apology accepted

This would be a nifty place for me to insert a link to that thread. (Unfortunately, this website doesn't make it all that easy to find.)

I won't guarantee you would find it interesting, nor that you'd have interesting input for it, nor that you'd want to even if you did. I do think you'd get past this particular preconception if you read the OP though:

In my time on CF, I've encountered and engaged many who profess to have been Christian in the past, and no longer are. I hope to see input from all of you ...

There are a good number of issues within the scope of this topic and I won't try to spell them all out in the OP, but generally I'm interested in the common ground between such people, (as well as their differences) and what makes them different from those of us who keep the Faith.

Further, I don't pretend to know how any of this works in an individual I've never met, and am primarily interested for my own efforts, to not fall away. Sometimes I wonder if it's really all just as simple as merely wanting to serve G-d, or not.



Which might be why I don't accept that interpretation of Scripture as having manufactured that reason? Anyway, I haven't seen this thread here address the thread title, so I don't feel it's possible to further de-rail anything

We might take it to a different sub-forum and it's own thread though?

In that case, I'm up for answering any questions you may have in a separate forum...or if you can find the already established one--that would actually be better, since we can address any pertinent points already brought up.

 

[TheRevolutionaryOne]

Evolution = Real
Jesus/God/Buddha/Allah/whatever you believe in = not real

 

[razeontherock]

Of course it is a change in stance. AV originally said that you just needed to take out a calculator, and do it yourself. He said nothing of having to compare different histories, interpret astronomical data, or compare manuscripts, as Ussher had to do to come up with his dates. He didn't even say that you had to use Ussher's work as a guide. He said you could add up the dates yourself. Period.

And you can. I did it. Your former point went AWOL

If he says to just take out a calculator and add it up yourself, as he said he did, why is it obvious that the claim should include other data? The standard reading of the claim does not imply any further sources necessary.

Of course it does, since the Bible doesn't continue in dated form to 2012 - whoops, less than a month and that will be 2013. There MUST be a point where the date ties in to secular history, right?

After I did everything I could, I concluded nothing different from what has been commonly concluded. I found it disappointing. I don't remember exactly what that tie-in point was and no Elandur, I didn't save my work so you can't look at it

 

[razeontherock]

I am mister pedantic.

You 2 are socks? First I've seen someone admit it - congratulations!

 

[razeontherock]

Evolution = Real
Jesus/God/Buddha/Allah/whatever you believe in = not real

Hi Mr first post! My "welcome to CF" unfortunately has to include that this would count as the prohibited activity of arguing against Christianity, or general apologetics, whichever you prefer to call it.

My response would be that God is real, but not corporeal, and so undetectable to science. And now someone will report me, being petty, and I will be banned. Seeya next year!

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Evolution = Real
Jesus/God/Buddha/Allah/whatever you believe in = not real

Wow.

 

[Jamin4422]

Evolution = Real
Jesus= not real

So Darwin was a real person, but Jesus was not a real person. Is that the best you can do?

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Drive by poster is driveby

 

[Jamin4422]

Your post made claims about Adam and Eve for which you have ZERO evidence.

If you do not want to believe that Adam and Eve were real people then don't believe. Why would that make any difference to me? Your lack of faith or your lack of belief does not change reality and what Christians know to be true.

 

[Jamin4422]

Um, asking you to support your assertion is hardly making an empty claim

What assertion are you talking about. I always back up what I say. You are the one coming here with nothing to back up your claims. As absurd as this may sound, you can not even back up your claim that I do not back up what I am saying. So your the one that needs to produce here, not me.

 

[Elendur]

What assertion are you talking about. I always back up what I say. You are the one coming here with nothing to back up your claims. As absurd as this may sound, you can not even back up your claim that I do not back up what I am saying. So your the one that needs to produce here, not me.

You do? Then I must've missed when you backed up your math in post #151. Could you direct me to the specific post?

(Thread "Even Pat Robertson Denies the Earth is 6,000 Years Old")

 

[46AND2]

Of course it does, since the Bible doesn't continue in dated form to 2012 - whoops, less than a month and that will be 2013. There MUST be a point where the date ties in to secular history, right?

Naturally, but the implication is that the Bible could be used insofar as the timeframe that the genealogies covered--Jesus to Adam; this is because AV claimed it was as simple as taking out a calculator and adding up the dates, which it clearly is not. Research into extra-Biblical sources is required.

It does not take much of a leap to conclude that the crossover could be the generally accepted date for Jesus' birth, since that is more or less the basis of our current dating system (or at least his birth is thought to be near the beginning of that system). In other words, it is a reasonable assumption because it has already been established, and would make counting the dates a simple matter of grabbing a calculator, if the data was provided in the Bible. Which would fit nicely with AV's claim.

But, if you need to do more research into ancient literature (for connections which are not so robustly established), then that should be included in the claim, because it certainly is not so simple as using a calculator to add up the dates.

Furthermore, AV's connection with Egyptian history was tenuous, unspecific, and not sourced. And if that is what amounts to his claim that "I did it," then it's hardly adequate.

I should clarify what I meant by not requiring your audience to make assumptions. Science also relies on assumptions, but when they do, these are well established, and we have very good reasons for relying on them. For example, the assumption that decay rates have always been constant. They actually researched to see if this was a legit assumption. They tried to vary the rates using many different techniques that are observed about nature, and at levels far exceeding any that are observed in nature. They also observe instances to indicate that these rates are very likely not to have changed, such as observing the decay of cobalt emitted from supernova 1987a.

However, requiring your audience to assume that ancient literature and astronomical cycles are necessary is not an example of a reasonable assumption when making a claim that something is as easy as using a calculator.

Make sense?

 

[Blackwater Babe]

What assertion are you talking about. I always back up what I say. You are the one coming here with nothing to back up your claims. As absurd as this may sound, you can not even back up your claim that I do not back up what I am saying. So your the one that needs to produce here, not me.

*I'm living in a cuckoo clock*

 

[Jamin4422]

You do? Then I must've missed when you backed up your math in post #151. Could you direct me to the specific post?

What exactly is your problem? I spent plenty enough time working on that to show you how easy it is. This is a mute point anyways. Objection to Bishop Usshers work is nonsense because of the universal acceptance of his work in the Christian community. For example his work is included in the Bibles that the Gideon society gives away for free around the world. His work is accepted by Ryrie, Scofield and used in many other Bible commentarys and Bible notes. You just do not get anymore rock solid then Bishop Ussher and the contribution that his book makes.

 

[Jamin4422]

*I'm living in a cuckoo clock*

So there is a limit to how far your willing to go with this. Ok

 

[Jamin4422]

Naturally, but the implication is that the Bible could be used insofar as the timeframe that the genealogies covered--Jesus to Adam; this is because AV claimed it was as simple as taking out a calculator and adding up the dates, which it clearly is not. Research into extra-Biblical sources is required.

Bishop Ussher did use a lot of extra sources. But really anyone can do the geneology from Adam to Abraham. The only thing required is to accept that Noah was 600 years old at the time of the flood. There does not seem to be any scientific evidence that people can live to be 1,000 years of age. Of course there is no scientific evidence that they did not live that long. IT is pretty much a standoff.

it certainly is not so simple as using a calculator to add up the dates.

I think your missing the big picture here. You have 7,000 years before Adam shows up in the Garden of Eden. We can mark the beginning of this era using the Nanodiamond layer found on the Greenland Ice core samples. They have that at 12,900. I use the date 12,982 years. Then you have Adam 6,000 years ago. Abraham 4,000 years ago. David and the temple in Jerusalem 3,000 years ago. Jesus 2,000 years ago. Then I use the date we get from NASA of April 13, 2029 and April 13, 2036 as the end of this age or era. So there is a lot more involved in dispensationalism then just when Adam was born. You also have the 2,000 year church age, you have the 1,000 year reign of Christ. Then of course you have the OT dispensations also.

If you go through the Bible and read EVERY passage that talks about the third day. OR if you read every passage in the Bible that talks about the seventh day, THEN it will all start to make sense. Even people have written books about the third day. I have read two different books written on all the passages in the Bible that talks about the third day.

 

[Tiberius]

No. You appear to have missed the point. Most likely by deliberately being obtuse

You don't even have a point. You really think that because the word in the Bible sounds a bit like a modern English word that it must mean exactly the same thing? Come on! That's some of the poorest reasoning I've ever heard. You haven't even attempted to show that your reasoning is sound!