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.
The bible does not speak of the space shuttle, the Andromeda galaxy, interferon, and billions of other things that are real. So according to your philosophy; None of the above exist because they are not mentioned in the bible?The fact comes to this, everything in the Bible speaks of Creation and nothing in the Bible speaks of evolution.
Sounds like Christianity is hanging on your conclusion.
Since you have chosen which Scripture is real and which is Parable, you are able to create what ever kind of reality you choose.
By that definition you can not even be sure if Jesus is who He says he is in the Scripture.
The fact comes to this, everything in the Bible speaks of Creation and nothing in the Bible speaks of evolution.
Since you have chosen which Scripture is real and which is Parable, you are able to create what ever kind of reality you choose.
You're gravely mistaken if you are of the opinion that (for example) TEs choose which bits of scripture is parable and which is not. 'Real' isn't a fair opposite, it's all 'real'.
As Augustine (?) said, "If your interpretation of the Bible contradicts the what is known in the world, it is your interpretation that is wrong."
No-one chooses which bits to read in whatever way. There are various tools for determining how any passage was intended to be read and what the passage is trying to say. It's not a matter of choice.
Thank you for that eloquence mr. Dave!
"If your interpretation of the Bible contradicts the what is known in the world, it is your interpretation that is wrong."
Aye. Well said indeed!
Well I feel better now that I'm not stupid but it's just that you're right and I'm wrong. Thanks for telling me that. At least its better than being stupid right?Don't feel bad. It was not intended as an insult at all. I myself am quite ignorant of many things. I am for example very ignorant of psychology or pediatrics. Or any number of other things. There is nothing wrong in not knowing. Wrong is only in claiming to know when one does not.
There wasn't any mistake.If so, why do you make so many rookie mistakes at the top echelons of your "society"?
You claimed that we didn't evolve from Chimps, then pick another beast. This isn't particularly relevant.Perhaps it is better that you who do the critiquing should learn what you're criticizing? Is that really too much to ask?
Does Entropy Contradict Evolution?Weeeeell..... In a way. But not the way you seem to think. What IS entropy precisely? Is it really degradation over time? No. It isn't.
Actually we can observe the accumulation of random mutations, loss of function mutations etc. These are what criticize Darwinism and potential exceptions are not required seeing that demonstrations in biological systems are available.Again, please learn what you're criticizing before you criticize it.
This isn't valid. Note that I do not recognize the "Science debunking thor so shut up" argument. Or that religion emerged from things we do not know so everything we do know about religion is what we do not know. That's mainly why the Thor argument is erected: To provide a source of intimidation so great, to generate a fear so immense, that even where theists have the evidence for god, even where theists have the upper hand, atheism's non-evidence is actually millions of times greater. Imagine that. Atheists don't have to provide evidence for the chance assembly of man because they inherently have [future] evidence of everything. Taken materialism to new heights. But what if the study of texts renders the Thor argument and the overall science over religion wall-banging, impotent. With materialism tying itself to science and empirical observation, one would never guess that it is materialism that doesn't have the evidence, that it is materialism who has the "Santa Clause". But that's just it: one would never guess.No it doesn't. Look at whatever point you want. Whatever claim you creationists boast. The best you can come up with is that we don't know every detail about certain things. But one cannot from that conclude that the thing about which our knowledge is lacking was made by an engineer, human, divine or otherwise.
Apparently not similar enough for the flagellum to be reducible via its manipulation of protein structure to compensate for a reduction in complexity and maintain function .Bacterial flagellum? Sorry, but that's a logically fallacious statement. Many of the proteins in the bacterial flagellum or cillium are very similar to each other or other proteins in the respective cell or other cells.
We tend to deal with testing.Their evolution is not all that difficult to explain, all you need do is search a bit. The process is well documented.
You already cited your level of expertise. I think I get it.As is the structure. In fact, this level of biology is where my expertise starts coming into play. The size is within my realm. Their functions and compositions as well. Although I am not yet an expert, I should add.
They would, should they choose to employ the theory of Intelligent Design. Fortunately we were those primitive people before we could venture into the complexity of cellular components and life overall. We recognized the design we were able to relate to with our technological aptitude at that time and they would as well. We see in biological systems, having gained the capability to understand even vaster levels of complexity, even more evidence of design, and even more complexity which we can relate to with factories and assembly lines. There are even higher levels, but none of these suggests that we cannot identify design.You say design is identifiable via physical means. I say this presupposes a comparable level of intelligence and an understandable level of complexity. Give an intergrated circuit or other device with complex enough mechanics to someone from the deep amazon and they might not recognize it as designed. You probably wouldn't if I showed you some of the stuff we work on. Heck, I wouldn't on first glance. I'd need an AFM.
Human design, God's design, intelligent design.Thing is, if we humans cannot recognize our own designs as such what makes you think we can recognize God's designs as such? It seems highly fallacious.
Funny how the trend shown via the evolution of video games, the evolution of technology, the evolution of cars, the evolution of airplanes, are instances of creationism, despite the ability of these aforementioned machines to adapt and despite an increase in complexity depicted over time, individually created with limited adaptation.It also seems highly problematic to assume He would design things the way we did in the industrial era. As it is today we use evolution as a design tool in many areas of engineering and science. Both biological and abiological. Why do you think God is incapable of using that which we use?
YepMetaphysical?
God is not inanimate. You're quite the fellow aren't you.Whatever. We weren't made from something inanimate and then into what we are now without any transition.
Actually the evidence points intelligent design.We evolved. Everything points to that. Nothing points to us being created as we are now from no other living creature before our current "form".
Excellent post. Well putYou're gravely mistaken if you are of the opinion that (for example) TEs choose which bits of scripture is parable and which is not. 'Real' isn't a fair opposite, it's all 'real'.
As Augustine (?) said, "If your interpretation of the Bible contradicts the what is known in the world, it is your interpretation that is wrong."
No-one chooses which bits to read in whatever way. There are various tools for determining how any passage was intended to be read and what the passage is trying to say. It's not a matter of choice.
Well I feel better now that I'm not stupid but it's just that you're right and I'm wrong. Thanks for telling me that. At least its better than being stupid right?
There wasn't any mistake.
You claimed that we didn't evolve from Chimps, then pick another beast. This isn't particularly relevant.
Does Entropy Contradict Evolution?
Actually we can observe the accumulation of random mutations, loss of function mutations etc. These are what criticize Darwinism and potential exceptions are not required seeing that demonstrations in biological systems are available.
This isn't valid. Note that I do not recognize the "Science debunking thor so shut up" argument. Or that religion emerged from things we do not know so everything we do know about religion is what we do not know. That's mainly why the Thor argument is erected: To provide a source of intimidation so great, to generate a fear so immense, that even where theists have the evidence for god, even where theists have the upper hand, atheism's non-evidence is actually millions of times greater. Imagine that. Atheists don't have to provide evidence for the chance assembly of man because they inherently have [future] evidence of everything. Taken materialism to new heights. But what if the study of texts renders the Thor argument and the overall science over religion wall-banging, impotent. With materialism tying itself to science and empirical observation, one would never guess that it is materialism that doesn't have the evidence, that it is materialism who has the "Santa Clause". But that's just it: one would never guess.
ID is NOT a theory. It is not testable, it is not falsifiable, it has not undergone and withstood scrutiny and repeated lab trials over a long period of time and it does not have the scientific concensus. Words have meanings. Kindly use the proper words with the proper definition. Creationism and ID are pseudosciences by the very definition of the term. They are directions of thought which pretend to be sciences but do not meet the necessary requirements to meet the requirements for fitting the label. So don't use it.Apparently not similar enough for the flagellum to be reducible via its manipulation of protein structure to compensate for a reduction in complexity and maintain function .
We tend to deal with testing.
You already cited your level of expertise. I think I get it.
They would, should they choose to employ the theory of Intelligent Design. Fortunately we were those primitive people before we could venture into the complexity of cellular components and life overall. We recognized the design we were able to relate to with our technological aptitude at that time and they would as well. We see in biological systems, having gained the capability to understand even vaster levels of complexity, even more evidence of design, and even more complexity which we can relate to with factories and assembly lines. There are even higher levels, but none of these suggests that we cannot identify design.
Human design, God's design, intelligent design.
Funny how the trend shown via the evolution of video games, the evolution of technology, the evolution of cars, the evolution of airplanes, are instances of creationism, despite the ability of these aforementioned machines to adapt and despite an increase in complexity depicted over time, individually created with limited adaptation.
God is not inanimate. You're quite the fellow aren't you.
Repeating yourself ad nauseum does not make it so. IF you were right you can go to university, work hard, and get nobel prizes in every discipline.Actually the evidence points intelligent design.
The bible does not speak of the space shuttle, the Andromeda galaxy, interferon, and billions of other things that are real. So according to your philosophy; None of the above exist because they are not mentioned in the bible?
1611 AV, are you going to respond to my post? What was your point about asking whether life forms are still alive 10,000 years after they are born?
No sir. I do not choose such. I approach it with humility. I cannot say I am correct in my interpretation, whatever that interpretation is. BUT, at times things come around which disprove/falsify an interpretation so we can know a certain interpretation is wrong. Among these we can find a couple of very concrete mistakes the church has made up through the time. One is geocentrism, which is about as thoroughly falsified as is possible. The other is young earth creationism. It is not a matter of some small mistake having been made by scientists or some constant a little off which will fix the entire problem, thereby validating your position. Your position is as thoroughly falsified as the notion that the earth is flat.
Therefore, if your interpretation of the bible is the correct way to read it by extension we will know with certainty that Christianity is false. For the same reason that we know that if the bible had hinged on a claim that the earth is flat it would also have been falsified in it's entirety. But - even though some people interpret the bible to say the earth is flat such a claim is certainly nothing the bible hinges upon. Nor do I consider such claims to hold any real authority at all. Which, incidentally, is what I think of your claims as well. I do honestly not see why they should have any support at all. Not from any perspective.
I don't think so. I do not for a second believe your position has any merit. BUT, that does not mean I am impossible to convince. I think it about as difficult to convince me of as the claim that 10+10=10 000 000, but I suppose with sufficient coercion it's doable as everything can be forced upon someone with the right brainwashing techniques.
Genesis 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
How do you explain this? Why would man be alone with all the billions of years of evolution, No Female???? Did God speed up evolution for Adam and cause the "common ancestor" to produce a full grown Human Female for Adam. Did God bring Adam a Baby to raise and marry and eventually mate with? Did the sub Human ancestor raise her?
God Created Eve. She did not evolve.
God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
This is another major reason why homosexuality is anti-biblical and morally wrong.
Evolutionists in contrast believe that the sexes evovled from a hermaphrodite or asexual organism, hence their theory attempts to justify homosexuality.
God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
This is another major reason why homosexuality is anti-biblical and morally wrong.
Evolutionists in contrast believe that the sexes evovled from a hermaphrodite or asexual organism, hence their theory attempts to justify homosexuality.
God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
This is another major reason why homosexuality is anti-biblical and morally wrong.
Evolutionists in contrast believe that the sexes evovled from a hermaphrodite or asexual organism, hence their theory attempts to justify homosexuality.
God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
This is another major reason why homosexuality is anti-biblical and morally wrong.
Evolutionists in contrast believe that the sexes evovled from a hermaphrodite or asexual organism, hence their theory attempts to justify homosexuality.
God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
This is another major reason why homosexuality is anti-biblical and morally wrong.
Evolutionists in contrast believe that the sexes evovled from a hermaphrodite or asexual organism, hence their theory attempts to justify homosexuality.
And here's an example of you guys':These are the kinds of posts that have been giving away your real agenda since you started posting in this forum pretending like you're not a creationist or a Christian.
God should not have written down that Christians should burn witches if he didn't want Christians to go out can actually do it.
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?