- Apr 5, 2007
- 144,404
- 27,056
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Reformed
- Marital Status
- Married
That is not the same as saying that science ends, which is what you accused me of saying.
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.
That is not the same as saying that science ends, which is what you accused me of saying.Indeed you are. You are saying that any science that does not align with your interpretation of biblical creation is wrong.
If it doesn't align with your interpretation of the truth then you consider it to be wrong. There's no ifs, buts or maybes about this. The example I used was astronomy. It's clearly wrong as far as you are concerned. The Webb telescope and all the other optical, infra red and radio telescopes are all giving us bogus data. They are useless. The work that astronomers do is useless. The data they collect is useless. The theories they have developed are useless. The International Atronomical Union has thousands of members. What they all do is useless. According to you.That is not the same as saying that science ends, which is what you accused me of saying.
It’s not the data that is wrong. It’s the presupposition behind the interpretation that is wrong.If it doesn't align with your interpretation of the truth then you consider it to be wrong. There's no ifs, buts or maybes about this. The example I used was astronomy. It's clearly wrong as far as you are concerned. The Webb telescope and all the other optical, infra red and radio telescopes are all giving us bogus data. They are useless. The work that astronomers do is useless. The data they collect is useless. The theories they have developed are useless. The International Atronomical Union has thousands of members. What they all do is useless. According to you.
So that's one branch of science that would literally cease to exist. Do you have a response or shall we do some others?
Please don't talk nonsense. If something is measured at X distance then you can interpret that all you want. But the distance is X. If you say it's not, then the data is wrong, the theories are therefore wrong and all work done on that basis is wrong. Astronomy ceases to exist.It’s not the data that is wrong. It’s the presupposition behind the interpretation that is wrong.
Do I need to quote you again for the umpteenth time.I answered directly. How is it nonsensical? Are you regenerate? If so, you are a Christian who is a scientist.
Your quote leaves no doubt a Christian cannot be scientist as science has done away with God."Science has created a way to try to explain away God. Professing to be wise, they became fools."
What presupposition is there behind this interpretation do you think? How is that wrong? How do you know what that presupposition is and how do you know this to be wrong? On what ground do you pretend you can correct astronomers when you do know anything about astronomy?It’s not the data that is wrong. It’s the presupposition behind the interpretation that is wrong.
Do you have any evidence that there is a god or gods and that god is the god of the bible?
I wonder how this is an answer to Frank Robert’s post.For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
— Romans 1:18-20
Mumbo Jumbo passing itself of as science....... evolution in a nutshellI didn't say that. We have brain structures and processes that allow us to learn language by hearing it. These are intrinsic features and are inherited.
What?
So what? And birds don't instinctively suckle milk from their mothers like humans and all mammals do.
See Gene's post above. He is more through. Instincts are behaviors and genes influence the brain structures and neurochemistry the drives behaviors (and is influenced by stimuli). The only way a truly instinctual behavior can occur (no learning from others of your species) is if the behavior is strongly influenced by inherited characters.
I was taught evolution in school. Typically of science, virtually everything I was told turned out to be false. I often visited the Evolutionist's temple, the Natural History museum in London. Much of what I saw there was later debunked. But somehow the theory itself survives. I know stuff. I know how hard it is to do temperature control, for example. Yet somehow a cold blooded creature can become warm blooded by the magic of evolution. The only explanation I've heard is that it happened because it happened. Mammals suddenly appear, complete with highly complex thermal control the opposite of reptiles. Amazingly they give birth to live young and somehow, miraculously, milk is provided to feed them. And all this by sheer accident with no mechanism to control the process. Not only this, every creature needs male and female to appear at the same time and the same place.Your earlier posts indicated a lack of knowledge re evolution. Your later ones are only confirming it. Instead of asking random questions, why not take the time to Google the answers yourself?
I was taught evolution in school. Typically of science, virtually everything I was told turned out to be false. I often visited the Evolutionist's temple, the Natural History museum in London. Much of what I saw there was later debunked. But somehow the theory itself survives. I know stuff. I know how hard it is to do temperature control, for example. Yet somehow a cold blooded creature can become warm blooded by the magic of evolution. The only explanation I've heard is that it happened because it happened. Mammals suddenly appear, complete with highly complex thermal control the opposite of reptiles. Amazingly they give birth to live young and somehow, miraculously, milk is provided to feed them. And all this by sheer accident with no mechanism to control the process. Not only this, every creature needs male and female to appear at the same time and the same place.
Suppose the offspring of a creature is a mammal by the miracle of evolution. If its parent is has not mammal characteristics, how does the offspring survive? It does not. It is so far fetched that I could not accept it even before I became a Christian.
I’m not making an opposing claim to this. I don’t see any biblical reason to say that x distance isn’t x distance.Please don't talk nonsense. If something is measured at X distance then you can interpret that all you want. But the distance is X. If you say it's not, then the data is wrong, the theories are therefore wrong and all work done on that basis is wrong. Astronomy ceases to exist.
The ToE survives because there is a consilience of evidence form multiple independent scientific fields.I was taught evolution in school. Typically of science, virtually everything I was told turned out to be false. I often visited the Evolutionist's temple, the Natural History museum in London. Much of what I saw there was later debunked. But somehow the theory itself survives.
I know stuff. I know how hard it is to do temperature control, for example. Yet somehow a cold blooded creature can become warm blooded by the magic of evolution. The only explanation I've heard is that it happened because it happened. Mammals suddenly appear, complete with highly complex thermal control the opposite of reptiles.
Your claim is that mammary glans did not evolve. It is interesting that you use the word "miraculously." The minority Christian alternative to evolution is that God did it. How did God do it? Miraculously!Amazingly they give birth to live young and somehow, miraculously, milk is provided to feed them. And all this by sheer accident with no mechanism to control the process. Not only this, every creature needs male and female to appear at the same time and the same place.
Christians believe in miracles so is it beyond belief that God would give us the miracle of a natural world?Suppose the offspring of a creature is a mammal by the miracle of evolution. If its parent is has not mammal characteristics, how does the offspring survive? It does not. It is so far fetched that I could not accept it even before I became a Christian.
My quote does no such thing. I can’t be any clearer. A true Christian is one who has been born again. It’s not whether someone holds to the biblical doctrine of creation.Do I need to quote you again for the umpteenth time.
Your quote leaves no doubt a Christian cannot be scientist as science has done away with God.
There your words not mine and now you are singing a different tune.
So which version do you to actually believe in?
I’d never presume to correct Dr. Lisle.What presupposition is there behind this interpretation do you think? How is that wrong? How do you know what that presupposition is and how do you know this to be wrong? On what ground do you pretend you can correct astronomers when you do know anything about astronomy?
It responds to his post concerning the evidence for God.I wonder how this is an answer to Frank Robert’s post.
Why not?Just producing a bible quote isn’t evidence of nothing.
No. You should see it as a very real consequence for continuing to deny the truth. There’s a command to repent and believe the gospel. It should be obeyed.Or should we see this as a veiled threat (god’s wrath) not to investigate certain claims.
Good thing I’m not doing that. On that note, straw man arguments, whether explicit or implicit are fallacious.You realize I hope, that threatening anyone who investigates made claims, isn’t a sign of strength and confidence, but a symptom of weakness and uncertainty.
This post is counter factual.I’d never presume to correct Dr. Lisle.
Language is indeed an inbuilt ability to learn, but an actual language is not inbuilt.
Communication non-verbal and verbal is present in a vast variety of animals. There are gradients in the sophistication of those communications. It clearly developed over time because it was useful.You cannot pass on what you do not have. How did the first inarticulate being develop a language? It had no vocabulary. There is nothing for it to pass on.
It might be a misinterpretation of my side. But to answer a request for evidence for the existence of god with the wordsGood thing I’m not doing that. On that note, straw man arguments, whether explicit or implicit are fallacious.
Let’s see.This post is counter factual.
Bradskii
You assume that the questions needed a response. I really don’t need to respond to those questions, or any specific questions about science. If you really want answers from a Christian perspective, you can find them on the internet.If it doesn't align with your interpretation of the truth then you consider it to be wrong. There's no ifs, buts or maybes about this. The example I used was astronomy. It's clearly wrong as far as you are concerned. The Webb telescope and all the other optical, infra red and radio telescopes are all giving us bogus data. They are useless. The work that astronomers do is useless. The data they collect is useless. The theories they have developed are useless. The International Atronomical Union has thousands of members. What they all do is useless. According to you.
So that's one branch of science that would literally cease to exist. Do you have a response or shall we do some others?
Hammster:
It’s not the data that is wrong. It’s the presupposition behind the interpretation that is wrong.
Driewerf:
What presupposition is there behind this interpretation do you think? How is that wrong? How do you know what that presupposition is and how do you know this to be wrong? On what ground do you pretend you can correct astronomers when you do know anything about astronomy?
Hammster:
I’d never presume to correct Dr. Lisle.
Note that Bradskii did NOT speak of Jason Lisle, but of the thousands of members of the International Astronomical Union. To suggest that Bradskii's post #1023 or my post #1029 was about dr. Lisle has no resemblance with reality.
And the reaction in itself doesn't answer any of the questions asked. The questions were
What presupposition is there behind this interpretation do you think? How is that wrong? How do you know what that presupposition is and how do you know this to be wrong? On what ground do you pretend you can correct astronomers when you do know anything about astronomy?
All I can do is to reiterate what I said and repeat that it isn’t a threat.Driewerf:
You realize I hope, that threatening anyone who investigates made claims, isn’t a sign of strength and confidence, but a symptom of weakness and uncertainty.
It might be a misinterpretation of my side. But to answer a request for evidence for the existence of god with the words
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
Especially the part "wrath of god" is easily interpreted as a veiled threat.
And when this is pointed out, to reply with:
You should see it as a very real consequence for continuing to deny the truth. There’s a command to repent and believe the gospel. It should be obeyed.
This reinforces that impression. Especially the words "consequences" and "obeyed".
But I might be wrong. If you meant it otherwise, you are kindly invited to clarify your message and to erase all misunderstanding.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?