For evolutionists that were christians at one time.

[ikester7579]

Today at 06:26 AM Arikay said this in Post #40

Just to point out, I believe there have been quite a few "Apes" that have been taught sign language and can speak.

Do you have the phone number of one I can talk to? I need someone to do my taxes.

Sorry about the joke. Just could not resist.

Anyway, I believe birds have been taught to talk. I have seen on t.v. that a dog and a cat have been taught to say a word or two by thier owners. So because certain animals can grasp words by saying them does nothing. Besides, I think we are straying from what this thread was all about.

 

[ikester7579]

Yesterday at 05:40 AM Arikay said this in Post #38

Ikester, A scientific theory and why evolution (or gravity for that matter) can never become more than a theory have been explained to you.
Just because you dont understand it, doesnt mean its wrong.

An article on Wiki about the scientific Method:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

So what part do I not understand? I do know that some theories will not be ever explained because unless they can be recreated in a lab, no one may never know exactly how it works. Like gravity.

This way that science approaches theories should also apply to creation. Ex: The canopy theory cannot be created in a lab either, and it has been shown that hydrogen can turn into a metallic substance which gives the possibility of it happening. But does anyone even look at it as a possibility in a scientific manner in the same way that science may look at gravity? Not here.

I have also pointed out that God (according to the Bible) created the planet first before light which gives one of the conditions required to make hydrogen metalic. Sub zero temps. So we are more than half way there to prove it could have happened. But does anyone consider this? no. The only thing left is to figure out how the pressure got high enough to do this. My question is: At absolute zero, does this effect the normal pressure of air in a sense that it is more condensed?

This is why I do not believe in theories as far as science goes. The example I have given is an example of how bias science can be when something does not go in the direction they want it to. To ever admit the possibility that there was even a God and that he created in the fashion spoke of in the Bible would flush all their hard work science has gone to, to prove otherwise. Because of this science and creation will never get along. neither will the people who work on either side as shown again and again here on this forum.

 

[notto]

Today at 07:30 AM ikester7579 said this in Post #42

This way that science approaches theories should also apply to creation. Ex: The canopy theory cannot be created in a lab either, and it has been shown that hydrogen can turn into a metallic substance which gives the possibility of it happening. But does anyone even look at it as a possibility in a scientific manner in the same way that science may look at gravity? Not here.
[/B]

Did you ever hear back from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory?

 

[BOK]

Today at 01:30 PM ikester7579 said this in Post #42 



This way that science approaches theories should also apply to creation. Ex: The canopy theory cannot be created in a lab either, and it has been shown that hydrogen can turn into a metallic substance which gives the possibility of it happening. But does anyone even look at it as a possibility in a scientific manner in the same way that science may look at gravity? Not here.

I have also pointed out that God (according to the Bible) created the planet first before light which gives one of the conditions required to make hydrogen metalic. Sub zero temps. So we are more than half way there to prove it could have happened. But does anyone consider this? no. The only thing left is to figure out how the pressure got high enough to do this. My question is: At absolute zero, does this effect the normal pressure of air in a sense that it is more condensed?

 No the pressure of air at absolute zero would be lower. Because pressure is the amount of particles bashing into another particle. And when you make something colder, you remove Kinetic Energy from the particles and thus they aren't moving faster (because KE = .5 mv^2 and the mass doesn't change so the velocity does) and thus don't bash into eachother as hard, which is what pressure is. Thus making it lower.

 The canopy theory is fairly silly. Seeing as metallic hydrogen has an extreemly high density, thus making its mass huge...and if this 'sphere' was in the stratosphere (as in the theory) it would have an extreemly high mass. Therefor the gravitational forces on the earth (covered by this canopy) would be immense. Not only this, but when this canopy turns into the oceans...the earth would have been covered in water completely...the depth of the ocean would be kilometers above the height of everest.

 This is assuming that the shell can form in the first place without collapsing in on itself by its own gravitational force...as the pressure of the air inside pushing out would have to equal the gravitational force of the shell collapsing inwards on it, which would probably squish the earth down to half its radius before you managed to get that amount of PSI.

 Besides, if we DID have this shell...the mass of the earth would resemble more the mass of one of the supergiants in our solar system, and we as a race of people would look like pancakes.

 As you said, the canopy theory may not be able to be produce in a lab, but all the components for it to exist can.  

I think i'll shut up before someone burns me at the stake for being a scientific heathen.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 08:30 AM ikester7579 said this in Post #42

This way that science approaches theories should also apply to creation. Ex: The canopy theory cannot be created in a lab either, and it has been shown that hydrogen can turn into a metallic substance which gives the possibility of it happening. But does anyone even look at it as a possibility in a scientific manner in the same way that science may look at gravity? Not here.

First, since creationism is a scientific theory, scientists did/do evaluate it like they do any scientific theory.  And they found the theory to be wrong. False. 

As I have pointed out several times, creation is not and never can be a scientific theory.  It is a theological statement -- God created -- that is forever outside the boundaries of science.  In order to make creation a scientific theory, you have to propose a how God created. Creationism is that.  But so is evolution.  That is why theistic evolution still has God but does not conflict with science.  Christianity simply has God use the how discovered by science instead of the how derived from a literal reading of Genesis 1.

I have also pointed out that God (according to the Bible) created the planet first before light which gives one of the conditions required to make hydrogen metalic.

It's not "according to the Bible", but according to your literal reading of the Bible.  A very different thing.

So what if hydrogen is metallic?  What does that give you?

This is why I do not believe in theories as far as science goes. The example I have given is an example of how bias science can be when something does not go in the direction they want it to. To ever admit the possibility that there was even a God and that he created in the fashion spoke of in the Bible would flush all their hard work science has gone to, to prove otherwise.

Ikester, you do realize that at least 40% of all scientists are pretty strict theists, don't you?  You are painting them as all atheists.  They aren't. Nor is science atheistic.  Science is agnostic.

 Because of this science and creation will never get along.

Science and creation get along just fine in theistic evolution.  It is science and a literal reading of Genesis that don't get along.  But a literal reading of Genesis isn't "creation". 

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 05:26 AM ikester7579 said this in Post #36

You say evolution is backed with facts? Then why is it still a working theory. Fact are things proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Theories are explanations of facts.  For instance, the theory that growth factors are mitogens for cells is an explanation for the fact that whenever growth factors are applied to cells in culture, you always end up with more cells than when the growth factor is absent.

Notice I said "backed by facts".  I didn't say theory was a fact in and of itself.  Theories are not separate from facts.  They are continually tested against facts.  If a fact (observation) is found that is contrary to the theory, the theory must either be modified or abandoned.

What you are claiming is that theories are completely separated from facts.  That isn't true.  Evolution is backed by facts.  If it wasn't it couldn't be the well-supported theory that it is.

Theories still have problems but are works still in progress.

Not necessarily. Cell theory is really no longer a work in progress.  It is well-established that all living organisms are composed of cells. Round earth is no longer a work in progress.  Don't you consider that the earth is round to be a "fact"?  But the reality is that it is a theory.

Within evolution, some parts of the theory are no longer "works in progress".  Common ancestry is accepted like round earth.  So is the ability of natural selection to account for the designs in organisms.

What is being worked on are 1)the mechanisms by which a species transforms into a new species  and 2) the exact ancestry of every species on the planet. 

But then, the exact mechanism by which growth factors cause cells to divide is still being investigated.  Answering questions on one layer doesn't invalidate the answer on another.

And because something becomes a working model does not mean that one day a new law discovered just might change everything.

This is true.  Someday new data may be discovered to falsify either common ancestry or natural selection.  Just like someday one of the rocks we drop may fall up and falsify gravity.  But until then it is perverse not to accept the theory as (provisionally) true.

And there are to many things that just don't fit into evolutions model, just as there's things that don't seem to fit in the creation model.

For the first, no.  There are things claimed by creationists not to fit into evolution.  However, upon closer examination each and every one of those has been found not to be a problem.  OTOH, there are facts that cannot possibly fit into creationism.  Because of that, creationism is falsified.

So to say something is fact that has not been proven in that manner of what fact is, makes it a belief.

Since I didn't say that, this is irrelevant.  You built a nice strawman, Ikester, but you didn't read what I really wrote.

 Because in order for it to become fact you and others have to believe evolution is, just like we believe God is.

Evolution isn't atheism.  It wasnt' atheism to Darwin.  I know I've posted this before, but perhaps you'll do the courtesy of a response, even if it's just to acknowledge that you've made a mistake.  From Origin of the Species, and tell me if this sounds like rejection of God.

"To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual."  pg. 449.

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."  C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 05:33 AM ikester7579 said this in Post #37

  So what your saying is that this one Bible translation you speak of was the only one in existance? And when it was changed all others were destroyed? So now there is no original word of God to go by. That no one person could have hidden the one Bible, so it could be used and refered to later on? That you know for sure that they destroyed all of them? Were you there?  

Ikester, at one point there were over 400 hundred gospels, not 4.  400 different versions of the birth, life, and death of Jesus.  Out of those 400, a Church council (a group of fallible people) picked just 4 of them to be "official".  Today the Catholic Bible has more books in it than the Protestant Bible. 

Not different translations, but whole different books.

Go to http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/christian-history.html for a list of the different books in the Catholic vs Protestant Bible.

The books not chosen by Council were burned.  But some copies of just a few of them escaped the flames.  Do a Google search and look for Gospel of Thomas and Infancy Gospel of Thomas and read 2 gospels that were not picked to be in the Bible.

 

[ikester7579]

Yesterday at 09:15 AM notto said this in Post #43



Did you ever hear back from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory?

  The e-mail listed is no longer valid. But I know someone who knows how to get in contact with them, so I sent him the idea and will wait for their answer. Or maybe he lost contact to. I may just call them.

 

[ikester7579]

Yesterday at 09:45 AM BOK said this in Post #44




 No the pressure of air at absolute zero would be lower. Because pressure is the amount of particles bashing into another particle. And when you make something colder, you remove Kinetic Energy from the particles and thus they aren't moving faster (because KE = .5 mv^2 and the mass doesn't change so the velocity does) and thus don't bash into eachother as hard, which is what pressure is. Thus making it lower.

 The canopy theory is fairly silly. Seeing as metallic hydrogen has an extreemly high density, thus making its mass huge...and if this 'sphere' was in the stratosphere (as in the theory) it would have an extreemly high mass. Therefor the gravitational forces on the earth (covered by this canopy) would be immense. Not only this, but when this canopy turns into the oceans...the earth would have been covered in water completely...the depth of the ocean would be kilometers above the height of everest.

 This is assuming that the shell can form in the first place without collapsing in on itself by its own gravitational force...as the pressure of the air inside pushing out would have to equal the gravitational force of the shell collapsing inwards on it, which would probably squish the earth down to half its radius before you managed to get that amount of PSI.

 Besides, if we DID have this shell...the mass of the earth would resemble more the mass of one of the supergiants in our solar system, and we as a race of people would look like pancakes.

 As you said, the canopy theory may not be able to be produce in a lab, but all the components for it to exist can.  

I think i'll shut up before someone burns me at the stake for being a scientific heathen.

I'd never burn you at the stake LOL. But you bring up some very interesting ideas and questions to solve. Because it has been shown that hydrogen can turn into a metallic like subtance. It is also said that because of it's make up and conditions in which it was made(extreme pressure and cold) that it was a super conducter repelling itself from the magnetic field instead of pushing on the atmosphere with it's weight crushing everything. And because of it's superconductivity, it was the magnetic field of the earth that held it together but also repelled it and suspended it above the earth. Just like in the pics of super conducter material that suspends itself in mid air.

 

[ikester7579]

Yesterday at 09:58 AM lucaspa said this in Post #45

Today at 08:30 AM ikester7579 said this in Post #42

This way that science approaches theories should also apply to creation. Ex: The canopy theory cannot be created in a lab either, and it has been shown that hydrogen can turn into a metallic substance which gives the possibility of it happening. But does anyone even look at it as a possibility in a scientific manner in the same way that science may look at gravity? Not here.

First, since creationism is a scientific theory, scientists did/do evaluate it like they do any scientific theory.  And they found the theory to be wrong. False. 

As I have pointed out several times, creation is not and never can be a scientific theory.  It is a theological statement -- God created -- that is forever outside the boundaries of science.  In order to make creation a scientific theory, you have to propose a how God created. Creationism is that.  But so is evolution.  That is why theistic evolution still has God but does not conflict with science.  Christianity simply has God use the how discovered by science instead of the how derived from a literal reading of Genesis 1.

I have also pointed out that God (according to the Bible) created the planet first before light which gives one of the conditions required to make hydrogen metalic.

It's not "according to the Bible", but according to your literal reading of the Bible.  A very different thing.

So what if hydrogen is metallic?  What does that give you?

This is why I do not believe in theories as far as science goes. The example I have given is an example of how bias science can be when something does not go in the direction they want it to. To ever admit the possibility that there was even a God and that he created in the fashion spoke of in the Bible would flush all their hard work science has gone to, to prove otherwise.

Ikester, you do realize that at least 40% of all scientists are pretty strict theists, don't you?  You are painting them as all atheists.  They aren't. Nor is science atheistic.  Science is agnostic.

 Because of this science and creation will never get along.

Science and creation get along just fine in theistic evolution.  It is science and a literal reading of Genesis that don't get along.  But a literal reading of Genesis isn't "creation". 

All through the Bible it deals with the super natural(miracles etc...). So if you take away all that science cannot explain, what do you have left? A bunch of nice stories of where people went and what they did. Now, because the book of Job deals with things that happen to him because of what God allowed, which parts do you omit(unscientific) and which do you allow(scientific)? Plus the bible would be 70-80% smaller because all that would be omitted for not being scientific.

Besides, Name one scientific theory(not a belief) were God was used to solve a problem and everybody accepted it? A formulation maybe? In theistic evolution, where is the line drawn? Do you keep pushing stuff out of the Bible when new scientific information comes along until nothing is left? Then what do you do?

Because of all the possibilities of theistic evolution, it would mean there is no common ground. Every person would say: This is how much of God's word I accept, and this is how much of science fits into it that I accept. The possibilities would be never ending and no two people could ever agree on everything. It would be like every religion having personal religions within itself and everyone never agreeing on what is and is not.

Man is always trying to find a way to be Godly and worldly at the sametime and be able to explain why it's alright. And from this thinking new religions appear with these beliefs and everyone looking for this flocks to it so they can hedge the fence between God and the world. Walking on which ever side they think they need to and still say it's alright because my beleif says so. So where does God fit in? And when does he get totally pushed out?

 

[ikester7579]

Yesterday at 10:59 AM lucaspa said this in Post #47



Ikester, at one point there were over 400 hundred gospels, not 4.  400 different versions of the birth, life, and death of Jesus.  Out of those 400, a Church council (a group of fallible people) picked just 4 of them to be "official".  Today the Catholic Bible has more books in it than the Protestant Bible. 

Not different translations, but whole different books.

Go to http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/christian-history.html for a list of the different books in the Catholic vs Protestant Bible.

The books not chosen by Council were burned.  But some copies of just a few of them escaped the flames.  Do a Google search and look for Gospel of Thomas and Infancy Gospel of Thomas and read 2 gospels that were not picked to be in the Bible.

Do you believe all the stories that you hear on Bible history? I bet I can find over 100 different stories on how the Bible came to be and what happened to it. Each one contridicting the other. The reason why so many people attack the history of the Bible is to weaken it's foundation. To say that God is not powerful enough to keep his word true says many things about him and what you believe to be true. Since God's word is supposed to be based on truth and you say it's not even all there, says that God's word is a lie. Which would mean that he is not and never was. Which breaks it down to what you really believe.

God, because he is God, can never lie. Not even in "his word". These are just some of the conditions of being God. To deny them is to deny he ever existed.

So when you start adding to, taking away from God's word, what do you have? The word of man.

The many fake histories of the Bible are put their so man can put his on ideas in it. By saying this is not God's word, that people burned it all(all of them all around the world). Is to make reasonning on why it would be okay to change it. Because to admit that any said book was the "true word of God" would stop this because no one would want you to change the true word of God.

But the story is told and people buy into it and accept it as fact. And like a previous poster said on this thread: Only man can mess things up like this. And I haved to agree with him.

 

[ikester7579]

Yesterday at 10:52 AM lucaspa said this in Post #46

Yesterday at 05:26 AM ikester7579 said this in Post #36

You say evolution is backed with facts? Then why is it still a working theory. Fact are things proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Theories are explanations of facts.  For instance, the theory that growth factors are mitogens for cells is an explanation for the fact that whenever growth factors are applied to cells in culture, you always end up with more cells than when the growth factor is absent.

Notice I said "backed by facts".  I didn't say theory was a fact in and of itself.  Theories are not separate from facts.  They are continually tested against facts.  If a fact (observation) is found that is contrary to the theory, the theory must either be modified or abandoned.

What you are claiming is that theories are completely separated from facts.  That isn't true.  Evolution is backed by facts.  If it wasn't it couldn't be the well-supported theory that it is.

Theories still have problems but are works still in progress.

Not necessarily. Cell theory is really no longer a work in progress.  It is well-established that all living organisms are composed of cells. Round earth is no longer a work in progress.  Don't you consider that the earth is round to be a "fact"?  But the reality is that it is a theory.

Within evolution, some parts of the theory are no longer "works in progress".  Common ancestry is accepted like round earth.  So is the ability of natural selection to account for the designs in organisms.

What is being worked on are 1)the mechanisms by which a species transforms into a new species  and 2) the exact ancestry of every species on the planet. 

But then, the exact mechanism by which growth factors cause cells to divide is still being investigated.  Answering questions on one layer doesn't invalidate the answer on another.

And because something becomes a working model does not mean that one day a new law discovered just might change everything.

This is true.  Someday new data may be discovered to falsify either common ancestry or natural selection.  Just like someday one of the rocks we drop may fall up and falsify gravity.  But until then it is perverse not to accept the theory as (provisionally) true.

And there are to many things that just don't fit into evolutions model, just as there's things that don't seem to fit in the creation model.

For the first, no.  There are things claimed by creationists not to fit into evolution.  However, upon closer examination each and every one of those has been found not to be a problem.  OTOH, there are facts that cannot possibly fit into creationism.  Because of that, creationism is falsified.

So to say something is fact that has not been proven in that manner of what fact is, makes it a belief.

Since I didn't say that, this is irrelevant.  You built a nice strawman, Ikester, but you didn't read what I really wrote.

 Because in order for it to become fact you and others have to believe evolution is, just like we believe God is.

Evolution isn't atheism.  It wasnt' atheism to Darwin.  I know I've posted this before, but perhaps you'll do the courtesy of a response, even if it's just to acknowledge that you've made a mistake.  From Origin of the Species, and tell me if this sounds like rejection of God.

"To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual."  pg. 449.

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."  C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.

Science is never wrong. They just adapt to the situation. So I do get it!

 

[wblastyn]

Do you believe all the stories that you hear on Bible history? I bet I can find over 100 different stories on how the Bible came to be and what happened to it. Each one contridicting the other. The reason why so many people attack the history of the Bible is to weaken it's foundation. To say that God is not powerful enough to keep his word true says many things about him and what you believe to be true. Since God's word is supposed to be based on truth and you say it's not even all there, says that God's word is a lie. Which would mean that he is not and never was. Which breaks it down to what you really believe.

But the Bible was put together by falliable men, how do you know they got it right?

You can't just say "God made sure", that was Cyprians argument for chosing a bishop, that God will make sure the right Bishop is chosen, and look how that turned out, there are corrupt bishops, ministers, etc everywhere. It sounds like a cop out more than anything else.

 

[seebs]

Today at 01:11 AM ikester7579 said this in Post #51

Do you believe all the stories that you hear on Bible history?

No, only the ones that are well-supported by documentation.

To say that God is not powerful enough to keep his word true says many things about him and what you believe to be true.

What says a lot is that, if any tiny portion of God's word was influenced by man, you think it's because God's *weak*, not because He has plans you don't understand.

Since God's word is supposed to be based on truth and you say it's not even all there, says that God's word is a lie. Which would mean that he is not and never was. Which breaks it down to what you really believe.

Or it says that some other thing isn't "God's word", but just says it is.

The Book of Mormon says it's the Word of God. Do you think it is? By denying that a thing which says it's God's word is true, are you not making the same claim you're deriding here?

God, because he is God, can never lie. Not even in "his word". These are just some of the conditions of being God. To deny them is to deny he ever existed.

Or to have read the Bible and noticed the part where it says the Lord sends deception into people sometimes.

So when you start adding to, taking away from God's word, what do you have? The word of man.

Exactly! That's what we have; the word of man. Men decided what was "canon". The Bible consists of men's ideas about what things were worth recording. Jesus said things that aren't in the Bible. We don't know what all of them were. What we have is the parts the early church wanted to preserve.

 

[troodon]

Today at 11:24 PM ikester7579 said this in Post #52



Science is never wrong. They just adapt to the situation. So I do get it!

Of course science can be wrong. How many different models of atomic theory have been falsified? Newton's model of gravity has been shown to have its flaws just like Darwinian evolution has been shown to have problems. Each of these theories, when faced with a problem, took an objective look at the theory and tried to see how the theory could be tweeked to agree with new data.

Just because a theory is wrong doesn't mean it can't be changed to be right. If I'm asked what 5+4 is and I answer 8 then my answer is bound to be falsified. I can then go back, review the problem, and come up with an answer of 9. Just because I had a wrong answer at first doesn't mean that my most recent, unfalsified answer is wrong.

 

[ikester7579]

Today at 02:26 AM wblastyn said this in Post #53


But the Bible was put together by falliable men, how do you know they got it right?

You can't just say "God made sure", that was Cyprians argument for chosing a bishop, that God will make sure the right Bishop is chosen, and look how that turned out, there are corrupt bishops, ministers, etc everywhere. It sounds like a cop out more than anything else.

My question to your first question is: How do you know they got it wrong? Maybe stories you have heard about that. If you really want to know how many different stories are out there about the Bible. Just do a seach on Bible history and see.

As far as God making sure. I seem to remember a story(in the bible)wrote some of the Bible and a king that did not like what he read and tore out pages and burned them. So God told that person again what to write and not to give it to the king.

To believe God lies is your choice. I choose not to. And we will be judged on the choices we make. Or maybe not if God's word is not true. So which is it?

 

[seebs]

Today at 01:37 AM ikester7579 said this in Post #56
My question to your first question is: How do you know they got it wrong?

Simple! We're mortal. We can't even *comprehend* the full truth about God, let alone get it correctly.

As far as God making sure. I seem to remember a story(in the bible)wrote some of the Bible and a king that did not like what he read and tore out pages and burned them. So God told that person again what to write and not to give it to the king.

That doesn't mean "God made sure every last word in every translation was flawless", or even that He made *any* flawless translation.

Look at it this way: Imagine that the Bible *is* flawless. What changes? We're flawed, we read it, we misunderstand it, we make mistakes... it *doesn't matter*. Even if the Bible is flawless, your understanding of it can still be wrong.

To believe God lies is your choice. I choose not to. And we will be judged on the choices we make. Or maybe not if God's word is not true. So which is it?

You're the one who believes that God said something which happens to be untrue. I believe that God tells the truth, and that men misunderstand Him.

 

[ikester7579]

Today at 02:33 AM troodon said this in Post #55



Of course science can be wrong. How many different models of atomic theory have been falsified? Newton's model of gravity has been shown to have its flaws just like Darwinian evolution has been shown to have problems. Each of these theories, when faced with a problem, took an objective look at the theory and tried to see how the theory could be tweeked to agree with new data.

Just because a theory is wrong doesn't mean it can't be changed to be right. If I'm asked what 5+4 is and I answer 8 then my answer is bound to be falsified. I can then go back, review the problem, and come up with an answer of 9. Just because I had a wrong answer at first doesn't mean that my most recent, unfalsified answer is wrong.

So we went from adapt to tweak? Wrong+adapt=tweak!

This sounds like the stupid question I was ask in school one time. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make noise? It's like saying: If I was shot in the head but did not see the bullet, does it have the potential to kill me? Does not seeing it make it not exist? 

I realize that these questions were made to make you think, but some of the answers I heard made me wonder if some people were from Mars LOL.

 

[troodon]

Today at 11:53 PM ikester7579 said this in Post #58



So we went from adapt to tweak? Wrong+adapt=tweak!

This sounds like the stupid question I was ask in school one time. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make noise? It's like saying: If I was shot in the head but did not see the bullet, does it have the potential to kill me? Does not seeing it make it not exist? 

I realize that these questions were made to make you think, but some of the answers I heard made me wonder if some people were from Mars LOL.

I'm sorry but I fail to see your point. Are you upset that I said that science can be wrong or are you upset with your school

 

[ikester7579]

Today at 02:41 AM seebs said this in Post #57



Simple! We're mortal. We can't even *comprehend* the full truth about God, let alone get it correctly.



That doesn't mean "God made sure every last word in every translation was flawless", or even that He made *any* flawless translation.

Look at it this way: Imagine that the Bible *is* flawless. What changes? We're flawed, we read it, we misunderstand it, we make mistakes... it *doesn't matter*. Even if the Bible is flawless, your understanding of it can still be wrong.



You're the one who believes that God said something which happens to be untrue. I believe that God tells the truth, and that men misunderstand Him.

What did I say that was untrue? And do you have absolute fact to prove it without a shadow of a doubt? And I do not mean what someone else says. Evidence.

Also I happen to know someone who went to compare the dead sea scrolls to a certain translation that has been around longer than any other to make sure it's true. And it matched. The dead sea scrolls are considered the infalible word of God by both christains and scienctist because it is the earliest word of God known. And it was hidden for the reason that some people back then, just like taday, wanted to destroy it and change it to their own liking. There has been enough scrolls found now that most of the old testament, minus the decayed part, has been found. Most of the new testament also.

I do not believe stories that man comes up with, only the evidence I see. So if you want to be more informed about the Bible, I suggest you research more on the dead sea scrolls. Find a web site or a book that is up to date on the subject. I suggest you do your own search. I won't post links because someone always points out that some are bias web sites.