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.
Have you seen the definition of scientism?Obviously, science relates to matter and its properties.
This is fundamental from the Creation.
Unfortunately, Naturalists promote exclusivity to science by religious belief that by ownership of the Scientific Method they control science.
It doesn't work that way. Science belongs to the Creator. What comes about through science and technology is from the Creator - not Naturalism.
Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.
Life adapts and is still adapting. Adaptation is a conservative process which can only extinguish certain characteristics but never add to them. The only observed 'evolution" anyone can seem to point to is the change in diet in bacteria. Benevolent mutations never have nor never will increase complexity. This is what the evidence shows. Irradiated fruit flies over thousands of fruit flies never change; never evolve. All evidence shows this. There is no proof of evolution' only hopeful theories supported by those for whom the truth is the illusion and the illusion is the truth.Believe what you like, but life evolved, and is still evolving.
Like Jack Nicholson said, "You can't handle the truth."I do it to defend the truth and reason.
Life adapts and is still adapting. Adaptation is a conservative process which can only extinguish certain characteristics but never add to them. The only observed 'evolution" anyone can seem to point to is the change in diet in bacteria. Benevolent mutations never have nor never will increase complexity. This is what the evidence shows. Irradiated fruit flies over thousands of fruit flies never change; never evolve. All evidence shows this. There is no proof of evolution' only hopeful theories supported by those for whom the truth is the illusion and the illusion is the truth.
Amazingly, not a single person who says that the Bible can be interpreted to mean something other than a young earth has ever provided the passages to back their assertion; neither can they seem to rectify the statements by Jesus concerning Adam and Eve, Noah and the great Flood, or Jonah in the belly of the "great fish."The problem you guys have isn't taking the whole of the bible as "truth." It is misinterpreting some of the scriptures in a way that was never intended by the authors. Your assertion that Jesus was YEC is not at all clear. If Jesus understood GEN1-2 the way it was intended by its authors, then he could certainly refer to it without being YEC.
Adaptation. Resistance to pesticides is no big deal. You can build up a resistance to nearly anything if you survive the intial dosing, as demonstrate by people who deveolpe a tolerance for snake venom. Is that really the best you've got?The "only" observed evolution is change in diet of bacteria??? Really? You haven't seen more evidence than that here? Resistance to antibiotics and pesticides ring a bell? Observed speciation ring a bell?
Most mutations are deleterious or neutral. The ones that are benevolent are rare, but they do exist. They do not, however, create new genetic information and encode it to the reproductive system. Mutations which result in significant changes always result in sterility.The other line I find interesting is: "Benevolent mutations never have nor never will increase complexity." Most creationists here insist there are no benevolent mutations... so, you at least are one step up on them. So, now you have added a caveot, that they do occur, but "never increase complexity."
From fish to amphibian, and amphibian to mammal, increased complexity plus the addition of genetic information that didn't exist in the parent is required. It has never been observed, and is not possible. It can certainly not be the driving force of all living things.Just how are you measuring "complexity" in this case? Give us an example of a potential change that would increase "complexity." Also, why is an increase in "complexity" necessary?
Glenn Morton did a good job. Look at his theology pages here, http://glennmortonspages.wikispaces.com/Glenn+Morton's+Pages+-+HomeAmazingly, not a single person who says that the Bible can be interpreted to mean something other than a young earth has ever provided the passages to back their assertion; neither can they seem to rectify the statements by Jesus concerning Adam and Eve, Noah and the great Flood, or Jonah in the belly of the "great fish."
Amazingly, not a single person who says that the Bible can be interpreted to mean something other than a young earth has ever provided the passages to back their assertion; neither can they seem to rectify the statements by Jesus concerning Adam and Eve, Noah and the great Flood, or Jonah in the belly of the "great fish."
Adaptation. Resistance to pesticides is no big deal. You can build up a resistance to nearly anything if you survive the intial dosing, as demonstrate by people who deveolpe a tolerance for snake venom. Is that really the best you've got?
Most mutations are deleterious or neutral. The ones that are benevolent are rare, but they do exist. They do not, however, create new genetic information and encode it to the reproductive system.
Absolutely false. References to support this assertion, please.Mutations which result in significant changes always result in sterility.
What do you mean by "addition of genetic information that didn't exist in the parent?" If a gene is duplicated in the offspring, and then mutated in later generations until it performs a new function, would that qualify?From fish to amphibian, and amphibian to mammal, increased complexity plus the addition of genetic information that didn't exist in the parent is required. It has never been observed, and is not possible. It can certainly not be the driving force of all living things.
QV please: Is the Genesis Creation Account History?It should be painfully obvious that GEN 1 and 2 are poetic stories written to teach theological concepts and not to relate historical facts.
Did Jesus not teach by using parables? Will you insist now that his parables were all historical events he was relating? If not, then where are the passages that tell us they were not historical? It should be painfully obvious that GEN 1 and 2 are poetic stories written to teach theological concepts and not to relate historical facts. Talking snake, man made from dust, rib-woman, trees of life and knowledge.. etc. What passages in Dr. Suess books tell us they are not historical? Yet, even a children books, these stories serve to teach valuable lessons. You would read "The Grinch Who Stole Christmas" and insist that there once was a Grinch and a Whoville occupied by Whos. That is not "truth."
Absolutely false. References to support this assertion, please.
?
It's a historical record of what this bunch of guys thought.
Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion.It's a historical record of what this bunch of guys thought.
How the heck it came to be regarded as literally authoritative is a grotesque joke.
Do you have the correct answer about if Genesis 1 & 2 are historical?
Are you led by the Holy Spirit?
It's a historical record of what this bunch of guys thought.
How the heck it came to be regarded as literally authoritative is a grotesque joke.
Would these be the same historians that say Jesus didn't rise from the dead?If you ask the vast majority of historians, no, the bible is not considered to be reliable from a historical standpoint. This is what historians do for a living; they determine "what most likely happened" in the past. To accomplish this, they follow a certain method to be as objective as possible and they go to work.
Look up historical method and it may be helpful.
Eyes barn ignit, eyes die ignit.People back then weren't the most literate and this strategy worked well on them.
I'll bet most of them have a second job.This is what historians do for a living; they determine "what most likely happened" in the past.
"The evening and the morning" does not leave room for interpretation.1. You don't need a passage to realise the Bible is open to interpretation.
Chosing to ignore the supernatural does not in any way mean that it doesn't exist. Unfortunately, many internet scentists cannot grasp that fact. They believe that things which are supernatural and are not easily proven must therefore not exist.2. In contrast science does not, as you seem to think, employ naturalsim. It employs methodological naturalism. That means, for convenience, we choose to investigate those phenomena which are natural. i.e. they are subject to laws which can, through diligent experiment, be determined. Science chooses to ignore the supernatural since it, by definition does not follow discernible laws.
Some scientists and most internet scientists believe that. Science is the study of the physical world. It is not capable of studying the supernatural.Some scientists mistakenly believe the decision to ignore the supernatural, means it doesn't exist. Not so. It simply means science has no interest in it.
Studying the creation is good. Attacking His word, calling it a book of mythology, and attacking the faith of His followers is not. Teaching falsehoods which are in contrast to the Bible and calling them facts is not good.If there is a God I rather suspect she would be quite pleased at how scientists have honoured his creation by studying it.
Why do you refer to the Creator as a female when Christ claarly called Him Father??I'm not too sure how she would feel about your refusal to use your intelligence and your power of reason; or how she would feel about you doubting what she has placed so plainly for you to see.
Adaptation. Resistance to pesticides is no big deal. You can build up a resistance to nearly anything if you survive the intial dosing, as demonstrate by people who deveolpe a tolerance for snake venom. Is that really the best you've got?
Most mutations are deleterious or neutral. The ones that are benevolent are rare, but they do exist. They do not, however, create new genetic information and encode it to the reproductive system. Mutations which result in significant changes always result in sterility.
From fish to amphibian, and amphibian to mammal, increased complexity plus the addition of genetic information that didn't exist in the parent is required. It has never been observed, and is not possible. It can certainly not be the driving force of all living things.
CabVet, I go out and get a PhD in evolution, then come back and state that God created the earth in six literal days.
If you're telling me that NOW you'll accept what I'm saying, just because I have a PhD now, then I disagree.
It will only make matters worse.
I say alcohol is a sin -- you can say I need a PhD in chemistry, and I go get one and come back -- I'll still say alcohol is a sin.
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?