- Apr 5, 2017
- 3,536
- 4,621
- 71
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
MICHAEL BEHE ON THE WITNESS STAND Shows that Behe was not discredited as some want to believe.
Upvote
0
If there is "no evidence" for evolution...
- Thread starter pitabread
- Start date
bhsmte
Newbie
When Behe had to admit under oath, that if ID was considered science, than astrology would also be considered science, the air went out of the balloon, because the ID folks were claiming ID was legit science.
The judge was a conservative Christian, and he saw through the whole thing.
Upvote
0
- Apr 5, 2017
- 3,536
- 4,621
- 71
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
From what I understand, Behe is not what would be called a "mainstream (fundamental if you will) Christian".
That only helps support that he wasn't bias in favor or creationism at the start of his discovery of ID.
The God of ID is not exactly the same as the God of the Bible. ID just says He exists, He is creative, organized, and didn't use evolution. The Bible tells us much more about God, and Behe may either know and adhere to this or not.
Upvote
0
- Apr 5, 2017
- 3,536
- 4,621
- 71
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Are you referring to the desire to stone homosexuals? If you are, than I am not in agreement with this, nor would God be. God did prescribe this for the Jewish nation when they were to follow the law as given through Moses. That was a system to show that mankind could not please God by their fallible attempts at keeping the law, and that they needed a perfect Savior, God Himself, Jesus. Galatians 3:24. Since Jesus instituted a new covenant with Israel, and the rest of mankind in general, and died on the cross, rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, mankind is living in a "grace period" not under the law of Moses. Homosexuals, like all sinners, are to be given the gospel, but not hated or stoned to death, as in the time period of the Law of Moses. If sinners reject Christ and the gospel, God will judge them. It is not up to Christians or anyone else to harm them in anyway. Neither is the Christian to approve of them though, or accept their lifestyle as acceptable to anyone.
Upvote
0
- Apr 5, 2017
- 3,536
- 4,621
- 71
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
ID's star witness. So what. He is not God's star witness. ID is just "intelligent design". God and the Bible are far much more than that.
Well, boys and girls, it has been fun, but I have other pressing things to attend to. May you have a nice day, and one day come to the knowledge of the truth in a way that you can accept and benefit from. Adieu.
Upvote
0
Speedwell
Well-Known Member
- May 11, 2016
- 23,928
- 17,625
- 81
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
And "blasphemers," a category which includes those, Christians or not, who don't believe in the literal inerrancy of Genesis. But other creationists aren't free of that tendency. I've lived down there, seen (and experienced) bullying and harassment, been told that what you have in mind for us will be easy "Because liberals don't own guns." Where I lived it was considered good sport to set dogs on JW canvassers and some were severely injured, but the Sheriff wouldn't take a report because he belonged to the same church whose pastor encouraged that sort of thing.
You know, if you wanted to try it again, I suspect that the mood of the country is such that we would just let you go this time--and give you your own man Trump for a president.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Astrophile
Newbie
- Aug 30, 2013
- 2,280
- 1,525
- 76
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Widowed
So what? Coelacanths (note the spelling) are an order of fish, not a species, and the modern Latimeria belongs not only to a different genus but to a different family from Cretaceous coelacanths - Coelacanth - Wikipedia .
To put it another way, the modern coelacanth genus Latimeria belongs to a different kind from the coelacanths of the Mesozoic era. If all coelacanths are the same kind of fish, then we are the same kind of mammals as baboons, howler monkeys and lemurs.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Ocean currents had been known about for millennia before Maury - for example, the Chinese, Norse and Romans all made good use of known oceans current in trade and warfare - and ocean currents had been mapped for centuries. Global maps of ocean currents had been produced by Athanasius Kircher (~1605), Eberhard Werner Happel (1665) and Alexander von Humboldt (1805) before Maury was even born.
Muary made important contributions to hydrography and navigation, particularly with regard to systematic observation of ocean currents, but claiming he "discovered ocean currents" is just plain wrong.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Apr 5, 2017
- 3,536
- 4,621
- 71
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I didn't say Maury was the first to discover the currents, only that through reading the Bible he went out to discover them for himself.
Upvote
0
Astrophile
Newbie
- Aug 30, 2013
- 2,280
- 1,525
- 76
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Widowed
This is a falsehood. In Columbus's time, all educated people knew that the Earth is spherical; the idea that they thought that it was flat is an invention by Washington Irving (1783-1859). Columbus merely thought that the Earth was smaller than was generally believed, and that therefore there was only a fairly short distance between western Europe and eastern Asia. In fact he was wrong, and his opponents were correct in their estimate of the size of the Earth.
The pagan philosopher Aristotle (384-322 BC) demonstrated that the Earth is a sphere more than 300 years before Jesus was born, and before the Old Testament was translated into Greek. Eratosthenes (ca. 296-176 BC) obtained a fairly good estimate of the Earth's size more than 200 years before Jesus was born by assuming that the Earth is spherical and that the Sun's distance is much greater than the Earth's diameter.
Finally, there have been many Christians since Columbus's time who have used the Bible to deny that the Earth is a sphere; see Christine Garwood's book Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea (Macmillan 2007). How do you know that their interpretation of the Bible is wrong?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Astrophile
Newbie
- Aug 30, 2013
- 2,280
- 1,525
- 76
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Widowed
Some of the fire-breathing 'dragons' and 'dragons' with multiple heads and tails may have been meteors and fireballs. The great fireball that passed over Britain on 18 August 1783 was described as being of the species Draco volans or 'Flying Dragon', and Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable defines a 'flying dragon' as 'a meteor'. Even Job's Leviathan (Job 41:18-32) has something of a fireball about it, breathing fire and smoke and leaving a luminous trail behind it. Fireballs and meteorite falls are fairly common occurrences, and it's understandable that people who saw them in Biblical times interpreted them as some sort of strange flying animal.
Upvote
0
You said: "Matthew Murray discovered ocean currents after her read of them in Psalms 8:8."
If that's not a claim that Maury discovered ocean currents, then I don't know what is. Maury MAPPED already well known ocean currents, and was probably the first to realise that the Atlantic currents were circular. However, to claim he "discovered ocean currents" via biblical inspiration is simple erroneous - its the sort of equivocation of language falsehood that is the stock in trade of laughable apologists like Answers in Genesis or Creation Ministries.
Upvote
0
- Dec 25, 2003
- 42,058
- 16,810
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
Except for coming out though it's upper lip, narwhal tusks aren't really that different from elephant tusks. Some narwhals actually grow a pair of tusks.
As with some other beings out of a Medieval beastiary, like the cockatrice, they were words familiar to the translators of the KJV and the the unicorn clearly meant a horse with a horn sticking out of it's head, not a whale with a tusk protruding though it's lip.
I don't know what "true science" or "true evolution" are supposed to mean, but there is an enormous amount of evidence supporting evolution from the fossil record, to biogeography to anatomical and molecular vestiges and genetics. All of it is consillient with life on earth sharing a common ancestor and evolving over the last ~3.5 billion years. If you're interested in a thumbnail version of the evidence, try this series of essays.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
I'd suggest leaving the Trump shtick for the political forums. It's not helping you to make your case or suggest that you actually have a command of the subject. That said, the lines are not so cut and dried. There's actually a nesting and descendants never stop being what their ancestors were. Sarcopterygian fishapods never stop being fish. Terrestrial tetrapods never stop being fish. Amniotes never stop being fish or terrestrial tetrapods (even if they lose their legs like snakes or whales). Mammals never stop being anmiotes, terrestrial tetrapods or fish.
There's just one problem with Mt. St. Helens - the supposed "canyon" in Spirit Lake was carved in mud and ashfall, not in solid limestone, sandstone, shale and granite like in the Grand Canyon. They simply aren't analogous.
You act like owning up to an incorrect conclusion is a bad thing? For those of us who understand how science works, it's actually a good thing. On the other hand, we see Creationists spreading falsehoods despite 20-40 years of them being shown that the claim is false. For instance the claim that Neanderthals were just Homo sapiens with arthritis has been debunked for decades, but as of March 2018, you can still get Chick tracts spreading this falsehood.
Upvote
0
tas8831
Well-Known Member
- May 5, 2017
- 5,611
- 4,000
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Of course it does.
Honestly, you really should have picked up on that by now, but I did my best to help.
I think I countered that with a question, let's see if you answered what your evolution started with.
I know what I said, what is your point exactly?
Surely you have done this enough where you know that always leads to a draw? Show me your proof and I'll show you mine? Get it? Waste of time.
LOL, you are desperate for an upper hand, aren't you.
Maybe you haven't done this so much after all. Hilarious.
There you go again, suggesting that is all there is in dust. They're doing a "No one left behind" seminar on dust here next April 1st...let me know if you need the time/exact address.
I, more strongly than ever, suggest that that seminar....Wow
And is that to say you have no insight on where what it took to evolve man came from either? Remember that draw I mentioned...told you so. If you have no explanation of your own, who are you to tell me the Bible is wrong....It always makes more sense, to me anyway, when someone says what they have is made, and didn't just appear in their living room on it's own...but that's just me.
Not sure where any face saving was necessary for me, but if you say so...at least I can save mine.
I had a lengthy, point by point response but it was wiped clear when I hit a wrong button, so I will just provide a basic summary:
1. You either do not know what the ToE actually is about or you are purposefully misrepresenting it for rhetorical purposes.
2. The ToE is about the origin of SPECIES, not the origin of LIFE. Creationists like to conflate the two out of either ignorance, malice, or both.
3. You are relying on a colloquial use of "dust" to save face. Today's 'dust of the ground' contains decomposition byproducts of living things (e.g., bio-organic compounds), whereas since Yahweh had not created living things yet, the 'dust of the ground' of Genesis was solely minerals.
4. You conflate your inability to address how Yahweh took mineral 'dust' and turned it into an adult, fully formed human with your assumed notion that I cannot answer a similar question asked of me - i.e., you engaged in a burden shifting fallacy based on your strawman fallacy, for you believe that the ToE encompasses the origin of life, which is wrong.
5. You think unwarranted condescension as a rhetorical tool makes you look clever, but it doesn't.
You have been here long enough to have at least learned the basics of the ToE, something you argue against, The fact that you do not seem able to present it in an even trivially correct manner says much about your motivations and maturity. Others have put you on ignore, and I see why.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
tas8831
Well-Known Member
- May 5, 2017
- 5,611
- 4,000
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Indeed. However, that would lead the evangelical into a crisis of faith - for if some parts of the bible are not literally true, but metaphor or premised on the 'ignorance' of the ancients, then OTHER parts might be, too. Important parts. Better for them, then to double down and not budge an inch.
Sad.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
