-
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.
100% of Scientists do not believe Darwin
- Thread starter JohnR7
- Start date
LewisWildermuth
Senior Veteran
So you approve of human slavery, which is one of the things discussed in some of his writings. He dissagreed with it and by your vote must be wrong so you therefore must approve of slavery.
Upvote
0
Why not? Asexual plants just keep growing. The roots send out new shoots and the new growth is idential to the old growth as far as the DNA is concerned.
As the Universe expands it cools. If you reverse the expanding universe, then you would also reverse the cooling. The closer you get to 0 (in time & in space) the hotter it is going to get.
Science can never remove all doubt to get to absolute 0 doubt, because the heat is to intense for them. As they say, if you can not stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Science can never be 100% sure of anything, because that would require absolute 0 doubt. Only Christians can make that claim. Astrology 301
http://hoku.as.utexas.edu/~gebhardt/a301f02/lect21.html
Never despise the day of small beginnings. The universe started off very small, and it kept on growing.
There is nothing to explain away. We just show you that things have a deeper meaning that is not evident at the surface. Christianity is anything but superficial. There is nothing narrow minded or shallow about it.
Upvote
0
It is the smallest known mathmatical measurement of not only time, but also distance. It is something like one millioneth of a billioneth, of a billioneth, of a billioneth, of a billioneth of a second.
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae281.cfm
Upvote
0
Nathan Poe
Well-Known Member
So it's an old bush. But is it the one and only burning bush?
Huh? You went from the expanding, cooling universe to "Absolute 0 doubt"? Try not to mix metaphors.
Not true. Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Fundamentalists of all walks of life, can all claim, and often do, to have absolute 100% truth, especially on matters that the rest of us would call "faith." That doesn't make them right.
At least the scientific method is intellectually honest. Created and maintained by falliable humans, science acknoledges its limitations. Scientists are not afraid to say "we don't know," because that translates to "we don't know yet."
I never said it was narrowminded or shallow, although you must admit that there are many who are narrowminded or shallow in their faith. That hurts Christianity, as it would hurt any religion.
Upvote
0
Mechanical Bliss
Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.
Actually, anyone who uses faith (belief without evidence) as the basis for their belief system can make a claim that is "100% sure" with "absolute 0 doubt". I can say, for example, that "I am 100% sure that we were created by aliens and the telepathic messages they sent me prove this leaving absolutely zero doubt" but that doesn't mean that I'm right or even credible. Similarly, just because Christians/you can claim to 100% certainty does not mean that Christians/you are correct.
The fact that science allows for doubt and skepticism is probably what's in its favor in terms of its credibility, in my opinion. It allows us to narrow down the facts and deduce the most logical conclusion that best explains these facts. That seems a lot more stable than simply claiming 100% certainty without substance.
Upvote
0
Hector Medina
Questioning Roman Catholic
- May 10, 2002
- 845
- 6
- 43
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
LewisWildermuth,
I was refering to Charles D.'s theory of evolution,not his personal opinions toward other things.......
Anothing thing BTW:
What did he care about slavery?
That was probably something completly political as the U.S. was in Civil War in the 1860's and England had many abolitionists and favored the Emacipation Proclamation made by the U.S. to show the war was being fought against slavery(though that was not quite what the war was about) which caused Eng. to stay away from the CSA(Confederacy).
He wanted to seem at least somewhat mainstream(which he already wasen't)to look good.
And it has been shown time and again that just because someone disagreed w/ slavery did'nt mean they wern't racist!
"I fought to make you free,not equal!"
--Daniel Chamberlain
In Christ,
Hector
I was refering to Charles D.'s theory of evolution,not his personal opinions toward other things.......
Anothing thing BTW:
What did he care about slavery?
That was probably something completly political as the U.S. was in Civil War in the 1860's and England had many abolitionists and favored the Emacipation Proclamation made by the U.S. to show the war was being fought against slavery(though that was not quite what the war was about) which caused Eng. to stay away from the CSA(Confederacy).
He wanted to seem at least somewhat mainstream(which he already wasen't)to look good.
And it has been shown time and again that just because someone disagreed w/ slavery did'nt mean they wern't racist!
"I fought to make you free,not equal!"
--Daniel Chamberlain
In Christ,
Hector
Upvote
0
That is just knowledge though. What good is it if there is no power? The reason I attend the church I attend is that there is power there. It is like buying a insurance policy. If a friend of family member gets sick, then I can pray and get results.
Now my wife likes the Methodist church, because of the love that is there. But people get sick, people die, people are depressed and so forth. There does not seem to be as much of the power of God at the methodist church.
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
Originally posted by JohnR7: There is evidence, because here it is almost 3500 years later and the bush is still there. Also, if you want you can climb the 4000 steps up Mount Sinai and see where Moses went to speak with God. It is no wonder that he lived to be 120 and was strong right up to his departure, having to climb up that mountain everytime he wanted to talk to God. There might be a lesson in there for us.
From the website you posted: "According the oldest monastic tradition, this chapel sits atop the roots of the same Biblical bush "that burned with fire, and was not consumed"
First, according to Exodus Moses only went there once. Not often. Second, even your website doesn't say it is evidence, only that it is rumored to be the site. Even then, is the bush burning without being consumed and is speech coming from it? No? Then it's not the same as what is reported in Exodus, is there? Again, no physical evidence we can all look at. Just trusting that Exodus is accurate.
Yes, the Bible is 100% accurate Historically, Scientifically, and Theologically.
Let's start with your science: In order to get to absolute 0 you have to get past Planck time, 10^-43 seconds where you find all the fire of the universe.
Plank time is simply the shortest amount of time that can be measured. Less than 10^-43 seconds and time becomes smeared in quantum uncertainty. The Big Bang states at 10^-43 secons after the universe appeared, the universe was very, very hot. However, getting to absolute zero does not entail going back to the instant of the Big Bang. It can be done today.
I just saw a post on that yesterday. Come on, I have my own work to do, don't ask me to repeat the work of someone else.
Why not? You do. Where did you see it? What did it say? This sounds like a duck to me.
The archaeological evidence is there. The walls fell down.
Jericho was sacked twice in its history. About 2100 BC and about 1500 BC. The first is too early for the Exodus based on internal Biblical evidence and the second is after the Exodus, again based on internal Biblical evidence and correlation with other historical texts of the Israelite kingdom. Grolier's Encyclopedia.
Do you want to talk about acheology or Biology?
We are discussing your claim that the Bible is 100% correct: scientifically, historically, and theologically. Archeology is part of history, isn't it?
Give it up and join us here in the real world. You don't go to infidels to learn about theology or the Bible.
They provide a list of scientific errors of the Bible. What, they can't read the Bible and do science? This isn't adressing the issue, but trying to distract by ad hominen attack.
So how does that qualify them to comment on the Bible or theology?
We are not discussing theology. We are discussing your claim that the Bible is 100% accurate scientifically. Anyone can read the Bible and compare that to scientific knowledge available to anyone.
Paul explains it by saying the Hebrews were like a branch on a olive tree that was not producing fruit. So they were cut off and the gentiles as a wild branch was grafted in, so we could produce fruit.
So religion changed in the face of new data. Of course Paul said this because he was recruiting gentiles. The other disciples were recruiting Jews. But you are the one that said to a poster that Christians keep the Jewish OT.
Not by me. I think we should follow the teaching of Moses. That dream was to show Peter that God was going to work though the gentiles. A group that Peter would have considered unclean.
That dream showed Peter that all the dietary laws were suspended. The disciples, led by Peter, were insisting that all converts must become Jewish, including circumcision and adherence to the dietary laws. The dream changed that. Are you telling me you keep two complete sets of cookware and dishes in your house so that you don't mix meat and dairy? Do you buy only kosher food? Never eat pork or cheese? The rest of Christianity doesn't. Why do they think they don't have to?
Because religion changes with new data and now the old beliefs are wrong.
From the website you posted: "According the oldest monastic tradition, this chapel sits atop the roots of the same Biblical bush "that burned with fire, and was not consumed"
First, according to Exodus Moses only went there once. Not often. Second, even your website doesn't say it is evidence, only that it is rumored to be the site. Even then, is the bush burning without being consumed and is speech coming from it? No? Then it's not the same as what is reported in Exodus, is there? Again, no physical evidence we can all look at. Just trusting that Exodus is accurate.
Yes, the Bible is 100% accurate Historically, Scientifically, and Theologically.
Let's start with your science: In order to get to absolute 0 you have to get past Planck time, 10^-43 seconds where you find all the fire of the universe.
Plank time is simply the shortest amount of time that can be measured. Less than 10^-43 seconds and time becomes smeared in quantum uncertainty. The Big Bang states at 10^-43 secons after the universe appeared, the universe was very, very hot. However, getting to absolute zero does not entail going back to the instant of the Big Bang. It can be done today.
I just saw a post on that yesterday. Come on, I have my own work to do, don't ask me to repeat the work of someone else.
Why not? You do. Where did you see it? What did it say? This sounds like a duck to me.
The archaeological evidence is there. The walls fell down.
Jericho was sacked twice in its history. About 2100 BC and about 1500 BC. The first is too early for the Exodus based on internal Biblical evidence and the second is after the Exodus, again based on internal Biblical evidence and correlation with other historical texts of the Israelite kingdom. Grolier's Encyclopedia.
Do you want to talk about acheology or Biology?
We are discussing your claim that the Bible is 100% correct: scientifically, historically, and theologically. Archeology is part of history, isn't it?
Give it up and join us here in the real world. You don't go to infidels to learn about theology or the Bible.
They provide a list of scientific errors of the Bible. What, they can't read the Bible and do science? This isn't adressing the issue, but trying to distract by ad hominen attack.
So how does that qualify them to comment on the Bible or theology?
We are not discussing theology. We are discussing your claim that the Bible is 100% accurate scientifically. Anyone can read the Bible and compare that to scientific knowledge available to anyone.
Paul explains it by saying the Hebrews were like a branch on a olive tree that was not producing fruit. So they were cut off and the gentiles as a wild branch was grafted in, so we could produce fruit.
So religion changed in the face of new data. Of course Paul said this because he was recruiting gentiles. The other disciples were recruiting Jews. But you are the one that said to a poster that Christians keep the Jewish OT.
Not by me. I think we should follow the teaching of Moses. That dream was to show Peter that God was going to work though the gentiles. A group that Peter would have considered unclean.
That dream showed Peter that all the dietary laws were suspended. The disciples, led by Peter, were insisting that all converts must become Jewish, including circumcision and adherence to the dietary laws. The dream changed that. Are you telling me you keep two complete sets of cookware and dishes in your house so that you don't mix meat and dairy? Do you buy only kosher food? Never eat pork or cheese? The rest of Christianity doesn't. Why do they think they don't have to?
Because religion changes with new data and now the old beliefs are wrong.
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
IOW, no. You are not willing to address the point that creationism is the most deadly enemy facing Christianity. Nor are you willing to consider that you are not doing God's work but actually driving people away from Christianity.
Don't worry, though, I will keep making the point. Run all you want, but the data makes the inference inevitable.
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
This is just too precious. A new exegesis of the Bible. Now where do you get that Adam was formed on day 8? He is formed in the same day that "the Lord God made the heavens and the earth" Genesis 2:4b. Not after all other creation was done. Not only that, but in Genesis 2:19 it says " and out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air," Now, if God had already made them previously on days 5 and 6, why did he have to every one of them from the ground?
Now, back to the supposed "proof" of the Bible. Cain was the farmer. Abel was the herder. It says nothing about what Adam did to feed himself. So, if you really want to be Biblical, they are all descended from Cain!
Now, however, you have people tracing their ancestry back 8,000 years. However, aren't you forgetting the Flood? Weren't all those people supposed to have been killed? And then everyone descended from Noah and his sons only about 3,000 years ago at the most?
So instead of backing the Bible, the data just falsified the Flood! Good job, John!
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
That's very generous of you, Hector. Now, would you like to claim that satan's confusion extends to most of Chrsitianity also? If so, how can we trust any of Christianity?
"When my Father [Frederick Temple, Archbishop of Canterbury] announced and defended his acceptance of evolution in his Brough Lectures in 1884 it provoked no serious amount of criticism ... The particular battle over evolution was already won by 1884." F.A. Iremonger, William Temple, Archbishop of Canterbury, His Life and Letters, Oxford Univ. Press, 1948, pg. 491.
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/4650_statements_from_religious_orga_3_13_2001.asp
A lot of "confused" Christians out there. As I said, if satan's influence is so prevalent, how can any of us trust anything about Christianity? Maybe satan also confused the gospel authors or Paul.
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
Yes, scientists are quite sure about very many things. Remember, hypotheses can be absolutely, certainly falsified.
Thus, we are absolutely sure, among other things:
1. The earth is not flat.
2. The earth is not the center of the solar system.
3. There is no such thing as the aether.
4. Proteins are not the genetic material.
5. Cancer cells do not have normal DNA.
6. The earth is not less than 20,000 years old.
7. There was never a world-wide flood.
8. Geology and the fossil record can not be explained by a world-wide flood.
9. Each species, including humans, were not specially created.
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
The theory of evolution at the time was viewed as fatal to slavery and racism. Racism (and slavery) were based on the idea of separate creations with blacks being created animals and not humans. Or at least created as not as good as whites. Common ancestry destroyed that justification.
Personally, Darwin hated evolution with a passion. He formed this hatred on his voyage in the Beagle witnessing the racism and horrors of slavery by the white colonists in S. America.
In terms of racism, the entire society was racist to the core, and therefore Darwin could not always identify what we today consider racist. This applies to Darwin's opponents as well as Darwin. Fleeming Jenkin wrote a criticism of natural selection. Note the racism running through the whole thing:
"Suppose a white man to have been wrecked on an island inhabited by negroes ... Suppose him to possess the physical strength, energy, and ability of a dominant white race ... grant him every advantage which we can conceive a white to possess over the native .. Yet from all these admissions, there does not follow the conclusion that, after a limited or unlimited number of generations, the inhabitants of the island will be white. Our shipwrecked hero would probably become king; he would kill a great many blacks in the struggle for existence; he would have a great many wives and children, while many of his subjects would live and die as bachelors ... In the first generation there will be some dozens of intelligent young mulattoes, much superior in average intelligence to the negroes ...for if a highly favored white cannot blanch a nation of negroes, it will hardly be contended that a comparatively dull mulatto has a good chance of producing a tawny tribe." Jenkin, F. 1867. Darwin and the origin of species. North British Review, June. In SJ Gould, Fleeming Jenkin Revisited in Bully for Brontosaurus, 1991.
Upvote
0
You do not seem to know much about Ancient History. This link will give you a time line that goes back 6000 years.
http://www.wordsight.org/btl/000_btl-fp.htm
Not through the Y chromosome. Cain only made it about 5 or 6 generations.
There was a flood, and a lot of people died. But I do not think it covered the whole planet. Just that group of people in that part of the world that Noah was a part of.
Upvote
0
Nathan Poe
Well-Known Member
Still beating this dead horse, John?
You've claimed in the past that most people don't have a third grade knowledge of the Bible. Please explain what part of the flood story, as it appears in the Bible, supports your wild interpretation.
You've claimed in the past that most people don't have a third grade knowledge of the Bible. Please explain what part of the flood story, as it appears in the Bible, supports your wild interpretation.
Upvote
0
Are you still asking all the same old questions?
I did not say most people, I said most Phd's. How well do you know your Bible stories? Can you tell me the story of the three Hebrew boys in the furnace? Can you tell me about Danial in the Lions den? Can you tell me about Samson and Delilah? How about the story of David killing the Bear, Lion and Golieth?
I would assume by the third grade most sunday school students should have a knowledge of these stories and more.
There is nothing wild about it, I just used the dictionary to look up the Hebrew word for Earth. It can mean the whole planet, but usually it means just an area where people live.
land, ground, soil, country, territory, district, region,
tribal territory, piece of ground
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0776&version=kjv
Upvote
0
troodon
Be wise and be smart
- Dec 16, 2002
- 1,698
- 58
- 40
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Now, JohnR7, perhaps Im wrong, but doesnt a literal interpretation of the Bible give a dating for creation that is about six thousand years old? If this is true then why are you supporting this scientists claim that a farming group of humans (you say descended from Adam) migrated into Europe eight thousand years ago? Either the scientist is off by an absurd 25% in his estimate or the bible is incorrect in its genealogy. The latter of course cannot be possible since the Bible is 100% accurate Historically, Scientifically, and Theologically. So I must ask the question, do you really agree with a scientist who you yourself think is off by such a ridiculous amount?
Upvote
0
So what is the point of using" people with Phd's" when you don't give the names of their papers and where they studied. I believe you can buy them from some places
Upvote
0
Nathan Poe
Well-Known Member
As a matter of fact, I am familiar with some of the legends you mention.
How well do you know your Norse mythology? Can you tell me who Skoll and Hati are? How Tyr, God of War, lost his hand? Where Odin's lance, Gungir, came from? Can you tell me who killed Baldur? Or what Fimbulvetr is, and who will survive it?
No? And yet you manage to live a full and happy life, I'd wager.
The Biblical trivia you've mentioned has about as much impact on my life as Norse legends have on yours. Why should I, let alone PhD's in science, be required to study such mythology, and then be expected to accept it as truth?
Upvote
0
