Believing VS. Understanding

[Poke]

Please quit showing your ignorance,

Typical Evolutionist.

 

[Willtor]

I agree. Poke, seriously, if evolution is faulty, it won't stand on its own. The fact is, it may not be a sound theory. But what you are opposing is not evolution but some conception of evolution that does not closely correspond to what is thought by Evolutionary Scientists. In order to oppose that, you are going to have to find out what it is, or you're blindly swinging your arms around in the darkness.

Please listen some so that when you can argue, you can argue in an educated way. It is not in my least interest to demean you, but this isn't fitting for a Christian.

 

[gluadys]

1) Read the next verse --- God did it, Himself.

2) Some of them worshipped the earth as a god.

Thus 1 above + 2 above = idolatry, which is forbidden.

1) Given the previous verse, God did it himself by empowering the earth to bring forth living creatures. Or do you intend to say that verse 25 contradicts verse 24?

2) Oh? Which of the Christian commentators up to the 19th century was actually an earth-worshipper?

The fact is that until Pasteur disproved it, no Christian suggested it was unbiblical to accept the "fact" of spontaneous generation, and more than one used this "fact" to support the bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

1) Given the previous verse, God did it himself by empowering the earth to bring forth living creatures. Or do you intend to say that verse 25 contradicts verse 24?

No, Gluadys, again I have to say it was taught in spite of the Bible, not because of it. I just finished reading abiogenesis on the Wikipedia website, and it says that it was taught that life sprang from decaying matter, not from the earth.

Some people like to interpret the Bible so literally that it doesn't make sense, then say it's flawed; others like to interpret it so allegorically, that it'll make any kind of sense, then say it's fable.

There's nothing new under the Sun. What makes the "scientists" today any better than yesterday, as far as the universe is concerned, Gluadys?

They spend millions upon millions of dollars trying to slam particles together to recreate the Big Bang; they spend millions upon millions of dollars listening for a "what's up, doc?" from another galaxy; water on Mars; life on Mars; etc.

In the meantime, we run out and buy magnetic bracelets, give one another Zen hugs, take shark cartilage in pill form, talk to dolphins, talk to flowers, take bio-feedback readings, rearrange our furniture according to lines of flux around the earth, astral project, astral travel, remote eavesdrop, conduct seances, hide behind crystals, try to achieve Kundalini, take Kirlian photos, and every other New Age and occult practice you can think of to "better ourselves".

Isn't it time we LET GO AND LET GOD?

 

[shernren]

There's nothing new under the Sun. What makes the "scientists" today any better than yesterday, as far as the universe is concerned, Gluadys?

They spend millions upon millions of dollars trying to slam particles together to recreate the Big Bang; they spend millions upon millions of dollars listening for a "what's up, doc?" from another galaxy; water on Mars; life on Mars; etc.

Monoclonal antibodies, viral vaccines, GPS, genetic algorithms, DNA biochips, nanotechnology, US NOAA, and semiconductors. All of these rely directly or indirectly on science that has to do with evolution, the Big Bang, or radiodating.

Particle accelerators don't just do experiments. When we build particle accelerators, part of that money is "wasted" on nucleosynthesis to generate vital medical radionuclides like barium, technetium-99m, oxygen-15, and cobalt-57 (atomic numbers OTOH). Go tell anybody receiving radiotherapy for cancer that building particle accelerators to produce his cure was a waste of money.

And without the fundamental physics generated by particle accelerator experiments you'd probably be at least 30 years behind in nuclear energy, which right now provides about 20% of electricity worldwide, saving vital fuel resources and lowering carbon dioxide emissions. Without this knowledge of subatomic science you'd be getting Chernobyl 5 or 10 times over.

Don't diss science, my brother. God knew what He was doing when He made the world a scientific world and then gave us the minds to understand His science!

 

[gluadys]

No, Gluadys, again I have to say it was taught in spite of the Bible, not because of it. I just finished reading abiogenesis on the Wikipedia website, and it says that it was taught that life sprang from decaying matter, not from the earth.

Well then, show me where the bible speaks against it. To me, you are just showing as much contempt for the best minds of the past as you do for the best minds of the present.

There's nothing new under the Sun. What makes the "scientists" today any better than yesterday, as far as the universe is concerned, Gluadys?

What shernren said.

In the meantime, we run out and buy magnetic bracelets, give one another Zen hugs, take shark cartilage in pill form, talk to dolphins, talk to flowers, take bio-feedback readings, rearrange our furniture according to lines of flux around the earth, astral project, astral travel, remote eavesdrop, conduct seances, hide behind crystals, try to achieve Kundalini, take Kirlian photos, and every other New Age and occult practice you can think of to "better ourselves".

And note that these are the very people who are ignorant, often willingly, of science.

Isn't it time we LET GO AND LET GOD?

Let go of what? Let go of ignorance or let go of knowledge? Let go of stupidity or let go of wisdom? Let go of pseudo-science or let go of reality and truth? Which actions are more likely to lead us to God?

 

[AV1611VET]

Go tell anybody receiving radiotherapy for cancer that building particle accelerators to produce his cure was a waste of money.

I have a better idea: YOU go tell them they're about to be hooked up to a "cheap" machine, because it was built from money left over from funding junk science projects. Tell them this machine is just sort of an "after thought" that someone accidentally discovered.

Be sure and tell them that we could have had this machine 30 years earlier, if it hadn't been for pumping the money into SETI or Project Bluebook, or cow-belching, or something like that.

Be sure when wheeling someone with advanced cancer down to be hooked up to a Mark III State-of-the-Art TumorTerminator that it could have been a Mark X, but other projects "got in the way".

 

[AV1611VET]

Well then, show me where the bible speaks against it. To me, you are just showing as much contempt for the best minds of the past as you do for the best minds of the present.

You want me to show you where the Bible speaks against something that it never taught in the first place? God commanded these animals to reproduce after their kind. He did not command the earth to reproduce.

God also made man of the dust of the ground. If the earth produced Adam and Eve, why isn't it producing humans still today? What changed?

What shernren said.

I don't buy using the terminally ill to justify junk science.

And note that these are the very people who are ignorant, often willingly, of science.

Ya --- everyone's ignorant but scientists, right? There are two types of people in the world: scientists and idiots, right?

Let go of what? Let go of ignorance or let go of knowledge? Let go of stupidity or let go of wisdom? Let go of pseudo-science or let go of reality and truth? Which actions are more likely to lead us to God?

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge...

Proverbs 10:27]The fear of the LORD prolongeth days...

 

[Willtor]

Ya --- everyone's ignorant but scientists, right? There are two types of people in the world: scientists and idiots, right?

Haha! Wait a minute! Those were your examples of foolishness in the world, not Gluadys's! No need to be so confrontational.

 

[AV1611VET]

Haha! Wait a minute! Those were your examples of foolishness in the world, not Gluadys's! No need to be so confrontational.

Okay, I'll chill --- but this stuff's a pet peeve with me.

 

[shernren]

I have a better idea: YOU go tell them they're about to be hooked up to a "cheap" machine, because it was built from money left over from funding junk science projects. Tell them this machine is just sort of an "after thought" that someone accidentally discovered.

Be sure and tell them that we could have had this machine 30 years earlier, if it hadn't been for pumping the money into SETI or Project Bluebook, or cow-belching, or something like that.

Be sure when wheeling someone with advanced cancer down to be hooked up to a Mark III State-of-the-Art TumorTerminator that it could have been a Mark X, but other projects "got in the way".

Like I said, if you consider Big Bang and astronomical science "junk science", then "junk science" would include in particular GPS, the US NOAA meteorological satellites, satellite TV, inter-continental satellite communications, nuclear power and potential fusion power. When humanity steps past Earth, it won't simply be a sentimental desire to run away from the home planet or an evolutionary push to find new life: it'll also be the practical benefits of manufacturing in low-gravity, mining where there are no ecosystems which will be damaged by it, increasing effective land area for a overpopulated world.

"Junk science" is very important for humanity's future.

 

[gluadys]

You want me to show you where the Bible speaks against something that it never taught in the first place?

Well, then, since the bible was silent on the subject, it was not anti-biblical to consider spontaneous generation true until there was scientific evidence which showed it was not. That was the case for about 20 centuries. It was science, not the bible, that made the case against spontaneous generation. Until it did, Christians were perfectly justified in pointing to spontaneous generation as an act of God.

Ya --- everyone's ignorant but scientists, right? There are two types of people in the world: scientists and idiots, right?

When the topic is science, yes. Now if the topic were art, then there are only two types of people in the world: artists and the aesthetically challenged. Everyone is ignorant about something. And knowledgeable about something.

 

[AV1611VET]

It was science, not the bible, that made the case against spontaneous generation.

It was science (Aristotle) that made the case for spontaneous generation in the first place, around 350 BC, when Christians weren't even around.

Until it did, Christians were perfectly justified in pointing to spontaneous generation as an act of God.

I find it very difficult to believe a true Christian (or Jew, prior to Christianity) would teach abiogenesis. Anyone can build a case for something that is not in the Scriptures --- and often do.

Some are legitimate, some aren't:

• kinetic energy --- not in the Bible --- legit
  Big Bang --- not in the Bible --- not legit
  digital communication --- in the Bible --- legit
  baptising for the dead --- in the Bible --- not legit

In addition, the gift of teaching was one of the 1st-Century gifts of the Spirit. I can only assume that they taught against abiogenesis (if they taught it at all).

 

[gluadys]

It was science (Aristotle) that made the case for spontaneous generation in the first place, around 350 BC, when Christians weren't even around.

And Christians accepted the science of Aristotle from the 11th to the 15th century as authoritative.

I find it very difficult to believe a true Christian (or Jew, prior to Christianity) would teach abiogenesis. In addition, the gift of teaching was one of the 1st-Century gifts of the Spirit. I can only assume that they taught against abiogenesis (if they taught it at all).

Abiogenesis is a new scientific field. I was speaking of spontaneous generation, not abiogenesis. And no, they are not the same thing.

 

[AV1611VET]

And Christians accepted the science of Aristotle from the 11th to the 15th century as authoritative.

All Christians, gluadys, or just some of them?

Percentage-wise, how many Christians do you think didn't accept Aristotle's abiogenesis?

Just give me a ballpark figure.

 

[Willtor]

And Christians accepted the science of Aristotle from the 11th to the 15th century as authoritative.

Abiogenesis is a new scientific field. I was speaking of spontaneous generation, not abiogenesis. And no, they are not the same thing.

It was taught by the Church long before the works of Aristotle were reintroduced to Europe:

"Let the earth bring forth the living creature." This command has continued and earth does not cease to obey the Creator. For, if there are creatures which are successively produced by their predecessors, there are others that even to-day we see born from the earth itself. In wet weather she brings forth grasshoppers and an immense number of insects which fly in the air and have no names because they are so small; she also produces mice and frogs. In the environs of Thebes in Egypt, after abundant rain in hot weather, the country is covered with field mice. We see mud alone produce eels; they do not proceed from an egg, nor in any other manner; it is the earth alone which gives them birth. Let the earth produce a living creature."

"Homily IX.-The Creation of Terrestrial Animals," St. Basil

I don't know when Basil wrote "The Hexaemeron" but he's a fourth century father.

 

[gluadys]

All Christians, gluadys, or just some of them?

Percentage-wise, how many Christians do you think didn't accept Aristotle's abiogenesis?

Just give me a ballpark figure.

First, Aristotle and the natural philosophers who followed him did not say anything about abiogenesis. What they described was spontaneous generation--a very different matter. See St. Basil's description in Willtor's post.

So no one either accepted or rejected Aristotle's abiogenesis, since there was nothing in Aristotle's writings on the subject to accept or reject.

As for spontaneous generation, I know of no Christian thinker who did not accept it prior to Pasteur's disproof. That includes, as Willtor notes, those who lived prior to the re-introduction of Aristotle to the west, for he was not the only Greek who taught it either, and it was well known among non-Aristotelians as well.

 

[AV1611VET]

As for spontaneous generation, I know of no Christian thinker who did not accept it prior to Pasteur's disproof.

Okay --- so 100% of Christian thinkers that you know of accepted spontaneous generation, prior to Pasteur's disproof.

So now, thanks to Pasteur, we "know better" --- right?

How gullible, in your opinion, is the average Christian?

 

[gluadys]

Okay --- so 100% of Christian thinkers that you know of accepted spontaneous generation, prior to Pasteur's disproof.

So now, thanks to Pasteur, we "know better" --- right?

I think you've got it! About time.

How gullible, in your opinion, is the average Christian?

About the same as the average person of whatever belief.

 

[shernren]

I don't know when Basil wrote "The Hexaemeron" but he's a fourth century father.

And this is the same guy whom YECs cite as one of the Church Fathers who believed in a "literal six-days". Talk about quote-mining.