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.
I used to believe that we lived on a globe spinning, twisting and twirling through a cold dark vacuum called space, and the only evidence of that, was the globe they shown me in school, and later all the NASA CGI-artist rendered images of Star wars planets named after Greek Deities like Mars, Venus, Jupiter etc.
But no, .. none of the 8.2 million scientists alive today is even looking for actual speciation which would prove Evolution scientifically, instead of blindly rely on prearranged, and rearranged fossils lined up to match their Religious preconceived notions.
Why?
I can show a universe without gravity, simply by density and buoyancy. The only place gravitational waves exist is within this science fiction created BB-universe story, confirmed by other "Believers" of this Religion through mathematics. It's easy to manipulate math to fit any model.
1. prove that either biological or cosmological Evolution is based on "science"?
This was a long answer you provided so I'll confine my answer. Re BB. The theorem came about via Einsteins theorems and coalesced to BB by other notables. If the theorem was correct there should be some observable phenomena. background microwave noise and gravitational waves being notable observations that have been measuredHello @Zoii
When I step out of bed in the morning, I have 61 years of evidence to back me up that I will step on solid ground.
When I get in my car, I have over 45 years of solid evidence with substance that my car will get me to work.
For anyone to make it through even one day with faith that's backed by no evidence would be a nightmare. No one lives like that, maybe only those with mental illnesses.
I used to believe that we lived on a globe spinning, twisting and twirling through a cold dark vacuum called space, and the only evidence of that, was the globe they shown me in school, and later all the NASA CGI-artist rendered images of Star wars planets named after Greek Deities like Mars, Venus, Jupiter etc.
As I said in my O.P. the older and far more accurate (and reasonable. common sense) definition of 'faith' comes from the most popular, and most used book in human history, the Bible. It defines faith like this:
Faith:
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
If you don't have evidence with enough substance that you can get out of bed, I'd say; don't get up.
No one should live their life even for one day with such a cold and scary definition of faith as one backed by no evidence. This Darwinism/ Evolutionary definition of faith fits in well with the cold, unplanned, chaotic description of how the human ape came into existence from a wet rock partially submerged in salty water (primordial soup).
The Big-bang model describes how the universe expanded from a very high-density and high-temperature state. Sometimes people find it hard to understand why the Big Bang is not a black hole. After all, the density of matter in the first fraction of a second was much higher than that found in any star, and dense matter is supposed to curve Spacetime strongly. At sufficient density there must be matter contained within a region smaller than the Schwarzschild radius for its mass. Nevertheless, the Big Bang manages to avoid being trapped inside a black hole of its own making and paradoxically the space near the singularity is actually flat rather than curving tightly.
Please show me how ANY of the above description of the pre-BB-universe came from observation, much less was ever replicated!?
I can show a universe without gravity, simply by density and buoyancy. The only place gravitational waves exist is within this science fiction created BB-universe story, confirmed by other "Believers" of this Religion through mathematics. It's easy to manipulate math to fit any model.
We have over eight million living species that, according to Darwinists have been evolving for over four billion years, that have speciated millions of times since they were amoeba, and you want to rely on carbon dating and fragments of skull & bones (fossils) infected with God-only-knows what kind of deformities, .. dug up from graves?
Evolution is an ongoing process, we humans are labeled as evolving apes, surely they could find a population of human common ancestors on one continent in a very different environment and diet who may have evolved to a point that they can no longer reproduce with human apes on a far away continent, in a modern civilized environment with very different diet, .. don't you think?
But no, .. none of the 8.2 million scientists alive today is even looking for actual speciation which would prove Evolution scientifically, instead of blindly rely on prearranged, and rearranged fossils lined up to match their Religious preconceived notions.
Why?
Because it is easier to prove a religious story by manipulating, and arranging fossils, and Peleoartist CGI rendered paintings from bone fragments to fit their doctrines.
What is that, what species is it?
"We don't know, but we are certain it is our Common Ancestor".
Should a religion like Darwinism be allowed to take over and destroy the core meaning of science, including the word faith?
The Godless Religion Darwinism has kidnapped the word "science" through deception, trickery and magic, and made it synonymous with the word 'evolution', and continues to redefine its definition in support of their own godless doctrines.
in its 1,700 years existence has allowed tens of thousands of different denominations to derive from the RCC, which itself is the founder of the Big Bang Evolution theory.
In this discussion, I ask Darwinians, who support and proselytize their BB-Evolution doctrines to;
1. prove that either biological or cosmological Evolution is based on "science"?
2. show why the word 'faith' can only mean 'blind faith'?
and evolution isnt base on faith too?
Ephesians 6:12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked
Should a religion like Darwinism be allowed to take over and destroy the core meaning of science, including the word faith?
The Godless Religion Darwinism has kidnapped the word "science" through deception, trickery and magic, and made it synonymous with the word 'evolution', and continues to redefine its definition in support of their own godless doctrines.
It has also redefined the word "faith" to mean "blind faith" which is what all Religions require;
Faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
synonyms: religion, church, sect, denomination, (religious) persuasion, (religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine
By reinterpreting the word "faith" into just a religious concept based on nothing but blind faith (see synonyms of faith above)
Actual, Biblical definition of
Faith: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
True faith requires evidence with substance, while Religion requires 'blind faith'
in its 1,700 years existence has allowed tens of thousands of different denominations to derive from the RCC, which itself is the founder of the Big Bang Evolution theory.
Evolution:
1. the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
synonyms: Darwinism, natural selection
2. the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
"the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution"
synonyms: development, advancement, growth, rise, progress, expansion, unfolding
The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.
Science:
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
In this discussion, I ask Darwinians, who support and proselytize their BB-Evolution doctrines to;
1. prove that either biological or cosmological Evolution is based on "science"?
2. show why the word 'faith' can only mean 'blind faith'?
To make the claim that there existed a singularity, is not a claim that is subject to a scientific test or even to falsification. The claim of the existence of a singularity, is a claim that an entity existed before the natural laws of science even existed. This claim should be rejected by the scientific community. Science is defined as observation, measurement, repeatable experiments, hard evidence supporting a valid theory through objective agreement.Ive always thought there was room for science and religion to cohabit. The Big bang which many Christians find so contentious I believe works well with the scriptures in Genesis.
There was nothing. Then there was a singularity which with rapid expansion evolved to mass, then stars ..."let their be light"
I noted that, there exists abundant evidence for the death and resurrection of the Christ.
Luke was a travelling companion of Paul, the apostle Paul was the last person that saw Jesus. Luke being a travelling companion of Paul would no doubt have encountered, some of the more than 500 witnesses of the risen Christ.You're probably a new Christian with all the fervor of a new convert, so I don't expect you to know the reality of the evidence. It sounds like you may have just finished Lee Strobel's (not a scholar) nonsense book. The fact is; there is no contemporary record of either the death or resurrection of a Jesus. All four gospels were written by anonymous authors, several decades after he died, in a language Jesus never spoke, from countries Jesus never visited, and all four gospel accounts are recorded in third person narrative - not as eyewitnesses, let alone personal friends.
No scholar believes that the gospels were actually penned by Matthew, Mark, Luke & John. That's why they're titled The Gospel According To...Luke was a travelling companion of Paul, the apostle Paul was the last person that saw Jesus. Luke being a travelling companion of Paul would no doubt have encountered, some of the more than 500 witnesses of the risen Christ.
Scholars' Verdict
Historicity of Jesus
Virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain. (wikipedia)
Clifford Herschel Moore, professor at Harvard University, remarked of Jesus' historicity, "Christianity knew its Saviour and Redeemer not as some god whose history was contained in a mythical faith. ... Jesus was a historical not a mythical being. No remote or foul myth obtruded itself on the Christian believer; his faith was founded on positive, historical, and acceptable facts." [Quoted in McDowell, 193]
Dr. Michael Grant of Cambridge has written, "To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus.' [Michael Grant, Jesus (London: Rigel, 2004)]
Yale historian Jaroslav Pelikan declared, "Regardless of what anyone may personally think or believe about him, Jesus of Nazareth has been the dominant figure in the history of Western culture for almost twenty centuries. ... It is from his birth that most of the human race dates its calendars, it is by his name that millions curse and in his name that millions pray."18
[Jaroslav Pelikan, Jesus through the Centuries (New York: Harper & Row, 1987)]
Axioms are by definition taken to be true within the system in which they are used. They are the basis of such systems, not absolute or universal truths.5) The axioms of mathematics are true statements
How much really is there about Jesus the man, his life, and his deeds, in Paul's writings?Luke was a travelling companion of Paul, the apostle Paul was the last person that saw Jesus. Luke being a travelling companion of Paul would no doubt have encountered, some of the more than 500 witnesses of the risen Christ.
That concept of faith probably comes from Hebrews 11:1.That's what it means, having faith in Jesus, trusting Jesus.
The convenient re-defining of faith was a tricky trick.
Important to study where words come from, to know what you're talking about.
To make the claim that there existed a singularity, is not a claim that is subject to a scientific test or even to falsification. The claim of the existence of a singularity, is a claim that an entity existed before the natural laws of science even existed. This claim should be rejected by the scientific community. Science is defined as observation, measurement, repeatable experiments, hard evidence supporting a valid theory through objective agreement.
Science cannot progress unless an idea can be tested and is subject to being falsified.
Any claim, theory, hypothesis, that cannot be tested is not in the domain of science.
The Big Bang as a scientific explanation is mere science fiction.
The Big Bang at the initial phase (singularity) is undefined, unbounded, not finite, thus cannot be measured or tested!
Do you reject the scholarship outlining the historicity of Jesus Christ?No scholar believes that the gospels were actually penned by Matthew, Mark, Luke & John. That's why they're titled The Gospel According To...
Mark is the first account written, and has significantly less information than Mt. and Lk. John's book is completely different than the other three, and paints a completely different Jesus character, almost unrecognizable from the other gospels.
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?