What about the differences between chimps and humans?

[Phred]

Because this "supernatural power" is in charge of His own words. Not academia's.

God doesn't firewall any of those Alexandrian translations.

Instead, He preserves His Antiochian ones.

There are 14,800 differences between the Codex Sinaiticus and the KJV. But I'm sure you have an explanation for that too.

 

[AV1611VET]

There are 14,800 differences between the Codex Sinaiticus and the KJV. But I'm sure you have an explanation for that too.

Well, that would make 14,800 differences between the Alexandrian and the Antiochian texts, wouldn't it?

(You do know that Egypt is a type of the world, don't you?)

 

[Phred]

Well, that would make 14,800 differences between the Alexandrian and the Antiochian texts, wouldn't it?

(You do know that Egypt is a type of the world, don't you?)

YOU claim to go by the 1611 KJV Bible, do you not?

 

[AV1611VET]

YOU claim to go by the 1611 KJV Bible, do you not?

Yupper -- the last of the official Antiochian texts.

Here's the translation sequence, as I see it:

1. AV330 Gothic Version
2. AV700 Anglo-Saxon Version
3. AV1389 Wycliffe
4. AV1525 Tyndale
5. AV1560 Geneva Bible
6. AV1568 Bishop's Bible
7. AV1611 King James Bible

Seven supernatural Translations.

 

[tas8831]

... and the racism which Darwin expressed in the Descent of Man should be disgusting to anyone on this forum.

SO, you believe what your Christian sources tell you about that, do you? Ever read it? I'm guessing no.
Go here and read it.

From that "racist" text:

“It may be doubted whether any character can be named which is distinctive of a race and
is constant.”

“This diversity of judgment does not prove that the races ought not to be ranked as species,
but it shews that they graduate into each other, and that it is hardly possible to discover
clear distinctive characters between them.”

“He who will read Mr. Tylor's and Sir J. Lubbock's interesting works can hardly fail to be
deeply impressed with the close similarity between the men of all races in tastes,
dispositions and habits. …and this fact can only be accounted for by the various races having similar inventive or mental powers.”

- Descent of Man, 1871​

Here are the words of a TRUE racist:

"Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites" -- Henry M. Morris, YEC, minister, father of modern YECism, 1991​

This made perfect sense to Darwin in light of the survival of the fittest.

I'm guessing you are using the colloquial definition of "survival of the fittest", not the real one...

Bottom line - do not trust what YEC websites/speaker tell you about evolution.

 

[tas8831]

I don't think we're on the same wave length. You seem to assume that science should have a monopoly on all human knowledge.

Science SHOULD have a monopoly on human scientific knowledge. No?

 

[DamianWarS]

Only on paper.

I'm not sure what that means. only via the perspective of science is my point. science has no capacity to "see" God. God is by definition immeasurable so science can't measure God ergo science cannot see God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not sure what that means. only via the perspective of science is my point. science has no capacity to "see" God. God is by definition immeasurable so science can't measure God ergo science cannot see God.

Science does not try to disprove God. Science can be used to show that certain versions of God do not exist. And please don't fool yourself into thinking that there is only one Christian "God". Different Christians can have quite different versions of God.

 

[DamianWarS]

Science does not try to disprove God. Science can be used to show that certain versions of God do not exist. And please don't fool yourself into thinking that there is only one Christian "God". Different Christians can have quite different versions of God.

if there are versions of deities that are based in this space-time continuum (STC), like for example the FSM, then it is possible for science to disprove them. the concept of competing gods is not sustainable and "God" eventually demands one all-powerful that preexists all things, is the source of all things, has no beginning or end, and is unchanging and when I refer to God it is those characteristics I invoke.

If there is a God regardless what I or 1000 other people think of him God exists separate from these beliefs and it's a moot point that 1000 people think of God differently. 1000 scientists may have different versions of the big bang theory but varied versions do not negate the event and if the big bang happened it happened separate from these varied versions and it only happened one way so either only one version is right or none of them are fully correct (or maybe they are all right in the context of a multiverse). Either God is or he is not but 1000 varied ideas of God doesn't negate him or define him and to suggest it does is just silly.

 

[Vap841]

if there are versions of deities that are based in this space-time continuum (STC), like for example the FSM, then it is possible for science to disprove them. the concept of competing gods is not sustainable and "God" eventually demands one all-powerful that preexists all things, is the source of all things, has no beginning or end, and is unchanging and when I refer to God it is those characteristics I invoke.

Maybe I will misinterpret your minimum qualification for God here, but when you say all powerful you aren’t including a personal agent that can make changes to its foundational power right? For example if I were to call the sun all powerful (as far as life on Earth is concerned) I would just be claiming that if the sun were to vanish then all life on Earth would crumble, but I’m not claiming that the sun could make a decision to produce a brutal heatwave one summer to punish humans for an evil & violent year. Is that how you’re defining God here, without adding the quality of being an intervening personal agent?

 

[Bradskii]

"God" eventually demands one all-powerful that preexists all things, is the source of all things, has no beginning or end, and is unchanging and when I refer to God it is those characteristics I invoke.

So, nothing there with which science needs to concern itself.

 

[DamianWarS]

Maybe I will misinterpret your minimum qualification for God here, but when you say all powerful you aren’t including a personal agent that can make changes to its foundational power right? For example if I were to call the sun all powerful (as far as life on Earth is concerned) I would just be claiming that if the sun were to vanish then all life on Earth would crumble, but I’m not claiming that the sun could make a decision to produce a brutal heatwave one summer to punish humans for an evil & violent year. Is that how you’re defining God here, without adding the quality of being an intervening personal agent?

Christianity defines God with 3 characteristics: omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient or all-powerful, everywhere and all-knowing. These characteristics are immutable so however, they were before creation they are the same what after creation. each in a sense describes each other. ie. one cannot be omnipotent without being omnipresent and omniscient too.

omnipresence to me has been the most challenging logically speaking because in order for God to be everywhere does that not also mean he is everything? if not doesn't it mean God is not everywhere but instead fills in the gaps around everything? But in Christianity, there is an important distinction that God and his creation are separate and God is not his creation. So the best place I can put God is in a supraposition to creation that allows him to be omnipresent while also being separate from his creation. If God is immutable then before creation certainly he was omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient because there was nothing to compete with but the addition of creation doesn't change these characteristics. God is still immutable and still is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not sure what that means.

You said a common ancestor can be reconciled through science.

Only on paper.

If you disagree, then consider this:

What part have computers played in keeping Darwin's tree growing?

Evolution is a game of connect-the-dots.

 

[AV1611VET]

And please don't fool yourself into thinking that there is only one Christian "God". Different Christians can have quite different versions of God.

We must have about ten different moons then.

And two Plutos.

 

[DamianWarS]

You said a common ancestor can be reconciled through science.

Only on paper.

If you disagree, then consider this:

What part have computers played in keeping Darwin's tree growing?

Evolution is a game of connect-the-dots.

Science has its own rules so if you want to judge something through science you need to play by it's rules.

 

[DamianWarS]

So, nothing there with which science needs to concern itself.

If we are speaking of the source of all things then looking to that source should benefit it, even if it is beyond its capacity. But it's more like the flatland analogy science cannot comprehend what's beyond it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science has its own rules so if you want to judge something through science you need to play by it's rules.

Science can take a hike if its rules try to trump God's rules.

According to science, miracles are impossibilities because they violate the laws of nature.

 

[VirOptimus]

Science can take a hike if its rules try to trump God's rules.

According to science, miracles are impossibilities because they violate the laws of nature.

Thats not how it works.

You really really dont understand even the very basics of science.

 

[Bradskii]

If we are speaking of the source of all things then looking to that source should benefit it, even if it is beyond its capacity. But it's more like the flatland analogy science cannot comprehend what's beyond it.

I think that what happens in science, is that it discovers how something was done. Which may allow you to say: 'Yeah, that's how God did it. That's the process He used.' And we're both happy.

But, if you start first and make a claim that you know how God did something and it doesn't match what science tells us could have happened naturally, then we have a problem. And we have to agree to disagree.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thats not how it works.

Yes, that is how it works.

Tell someone that Jesus walked on water, and he can -- not necessarily will, but can -- tell you that that would violate buoyancy laws.

Tell someone that the ex nihilo creation events during the creation week raised the level of mass/energy in the universe from zero to its current level today, and you just might get a lecture on the Law of Conservation of Energy.

Tell someone that the universe was created on 23 October 4004 BC, and you might get a lecture on the Big Bang and/or deep time.

And the list can go on and on.

At some point, you have to tell science to take a hike.