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.
What you believe is not supported by data either.You can belive whatever you want, its still not science and not supported by data.
Unfortunately, Dr. Tour says it better than I can.
Want to talk about theology?
I'm good to go.
Oh. And science can be mixed with theology...
you seem to have a problem with this, but Christianity does not -- at least mainline christianity does not.
And why is arguing with anything rude?
What is it that Dr. Tour says that you don't agree with?
What you believe is not supported by data either.
Science keeps making discoveries but they still don't understand about everything and may never,,,and they still don't understand how life began.
If you know how life began, maybe you could cue us in?
I'm not interested in science because I'm a Christian.Science is a description of physical reality, nothing more, nothing less.
If you try to mix that with religion you end up with stupid concepts like ID, and its just religion and no science.
Im not interedted in theology as Im an atheist.
I know you're not responsible for my education.Im not responsible for your education, but no, I dont know and thats ok. I dont insert magic as soon as I dont know how something work.
I'm not interested in science because I'm a Christian.
Now isn't that a silly statement?
It's good to be interested in everything.
A person with an open mind wants to know as much as they can. I don't stop knowing about what science is doing because I believe God created everything.
Anyway, I mentioned about theology because THAT LANGUAGE I know. I do not know the language of science.
BTW, some big announcement on April 10th...do you have any idea what it is?
I know you're not responsible for my education.
You like to say that.
What if YOU were trying to find out about what places to visit in Rome....and you asked me....and I replied that I'm not responsible for your education.
It's pretty nasty.
I know enough about science to know that we did NOT start from NOTHING....This is a science sub-fora.
You wanna preach or talk theology there are other parts of the site for that.
If you dont know science then maybe you should educate yourself before posting about subjects you sre ignornst in.
I know enough about science to know that we did NOT start from NOTHING....
I know enough to know that we cannot go back to before the big bang...and thus we know new knowledge in increments and nothing big has happened to explain our presence in this universe.
I know enough about science to know that our DNA, or the DNA of any other species, did not happen by chance because it's impossible.
You have a universe,,,something had to start it,,,and you do not know what.
Intelligent design makes much more sense than chemicals coming together in just the right amount and just the right ones to cause humanity (or life of any type).
This cannot even be repeated in a lab and we know what is needed for life.
So, I'll remove myself now.
However, I haven't learned ANYTHING from this thread...I thought I might.
And no need to be sorry about that....
I wasn't really expecting to.
As to fossils, yeah...where's the change?
I see animals in each strada, but I don't see the change.
No matter.
Not everyone believes in spirit or lacks 'peace' because of it.This is how I understand things to be: There's a higher power than us...call it God. God is spirit...there's something in us that wants to know this spirit and what we have to do with it. We don't really seem to have "peace" until we come to grips with this idea.
For me it's not a matter of wanting to believe, but wanting to know how the world is, to the extent that we can understand it; crudely, what we can show to be true. The concept of spirit, in any more than a metaphorical sense, is simply contrary to how we know the world works. The forces and particles significant to our everyday lives have been thoroughly explored. There may well be forces we haven't yet found, but they are too weak or too short range to be significant, or we'd have detected them. There may be particles we haven't found, but if they have significant interaction with those we're made of, we'd have seen them (if fact, we'd have made them). This is the real-world problem of interaction, not to mention the conservation of energy problem.God reaches out to let Himself be known..we could accept Him or deny Him, but the world turns anyway. No matter what we personally want to believe. There's something in us different from other animals...I believe it's our spirit. Jesus came to teach us how to belong to the Kingdom of God here on earth. If we belong to it here, we'll also belong to it after death. The Kingdom is right here, right now. It's a place...a different dimension...It has a population, and a King, and rules. Christians that are waiting for death to get their "reward" are not seeing this reality. Jesus spoke about this Kingdom..,not about being saved...
Do you have an estimate for that, or is it just a belief? When I think of people dying for causes, indoctrination, propaganda, and manipulation come to mind; wars, cults, fundamentalism, martyrdom.Agreed. I also believe most of them were right.
The same things are worth fighting for as ever - family, community, freedom... but from our earliest recorded history, our tribal and territorial instincts have been hijacked, and our lives made commodities, to serve the purposes of others - by 'the will to power' as Neitzsche had it.One of our problems these days is that many don't think anything is worth fighting for. We just accept what comes our way...we're not as free as we'd like to think we are; but we've accepted this already - and don't even know that we have.
More like wanting your imaginary friend rather than a book about your imaginary friend; that's wishful thinking. Girlfriends are real, tangible people.We could come to belief by study.
Or we could come to belief by searching for God and wanting HIM, more than we want scripture. It's kind of like wanting a book written about your girlfriend...instead of wanting your girlfriend.
I was taught that Jesus exhorted the apostles to 'spread the Word' - that's what 'apostle' means:Scientology is a religious movement.
New Age is a religious movement.
Women had a movement.
Civil rights was a movement.
They began with an idea and some persons caused it to grow and worked toward that.
I don't think of Christianity that way. I don't think of it as a deliberate movement.
Jesus died. The Apostles saw Him alive again...He had taught them a lot of things about God and how they could be close to Him (as opposed to what the Pharisees were doing) and they wanted to spread the good word..the good news. I don't think they sat around and said...we have to do this...and the way it grew!
Apparently there's some debate about that among scholars.The Apostle John wrote the gospel of John.
The person of Jesus and the resurrection are parts of the story - the gospels are the source. If we can dismiss the details as irrelevant because the stories are just representing a greater idea, who's to say that the strangely varying resurrection accounts are not simply representations of the idea that Jesus, his works, and teachings, live on in the world through people's memories and beliefs?The gospels were not written to be a story...they were written to acquaint us with the person of Jesus. A chronological bible comes up with some problems that are resolvable, but it gets complicated to write about. For instance...who saw Jesus first? Was there a gardener by the tomb or an angel? Each writer told the story the way he heard it. To be honest, it would bother me more if it agreed in every detail. The story itself is not the point. The point is to show that Jesus was the awaited for Messiah, that He died and was resurrected. Everything hinges on the resurrection.
Yes, I've heard this kind of assertion before. AFAICT it basically means that there is no conceivable evidence that would change your mind. Correct me if I'm wrong about that.... not "plausable"...that would not be enough. I believe it happened.
As I already said, it didn't happen by chance. That's a straw man fallacy.You're talking here about the instructions in the DNA....how complicated they are. How could it be by chance?
The former is contradictory by definition; the principle underlying the latter is demonstrable.This is more difficult for me to accept than a man coming back to life. I guess maybe we just need to decide which one is more "plausible"?
I'm curious to know why you believe some undemonstrable claims and not others. Many people simply believe what they've been brought up to believe, and dismiss inconsistencies so to retain what they've been taught to believe is important, e.g. "Everything hinges on the resurrection." This is known as confirmation bias.Just because I'm Christian and believe Jesus was resurrected does NOT mean I believe anything that comes along!! I'm not dumb...I'm just a believer.
Yes; they had to draw the line somewhere, and it was generally at 'medically inexplicable'. Inevitably, as medical knowledge developed, some of these events turned out to be extremely rare, but medically explicable. And, as I mentioned, given sufficient numbers, even extremely rare events should be expected.I hope you're talking just about the 67 the church found to be authentic....Spontaneous remission was considered....I don't remember too much about the study...I just remember that they had thought of everything.
I'm curious to know the criteria - besides prior belief.The above is possible. This is the decision that has to be made....
Yet you accept that the main event described was real, despite that accounts with such conflicting descriptions wouldn't even be considered for presenting to a court as evidence of the main event, and the main event itself is a magical claim... So why - besides prior belief?I agree with all you've said --- it's all true.
Why?I think it's reasonable to allow for these differences.
It was based on the particular words Paul used, which were apparently more usually associated with spiritual awakening rather than resurrection. But, OK.I don't agree with your last sentence about Paul using the language of Spiritual Awakening. I've never encountered this idea before. I'm not going to ask where you heard it or read of it because anyway I know this isn't the case.
How can we be so certain, when the stories differ so much? The whole thing could be a legend.Yes...like I said, I don't believe it's important where He first appeared to to whom...but that He came at all.
Exactly, for JFK we have multiple independent sources of verifiable evidence that are consistent with each other; for the resurrection stories, we don't.But the fact is that we KNOW it!
I got this FB,,,but can't read it right now. Ran thru it quick...I think you misunderstood about the girlfriend thing.Not everyone believes in spirit or lacks 'peace' because of it.
For me it's not a matter of wanting to believe, but wanting to know how the world is, to the extent that we can understand it; crudely, what we can show to be true. The concept of spirit, in any more than a metaphorical sense, is simply contrary to how we know the world works. The forces and particles significant to our everyday lives have been thoroughly explored. There may well be forces we haven't yet found, but they are too weak or too short range to be significant, or we'd have detected them. There may be particles we haven't found, but if they have significant interaction with those we're made of, we'd have seen them (if fact, we'd have made them). This is the real-world problem of interaction, not to mention the conservation of energy problem.
You can believe in an ineffable, undetectable spiritual realm where souls & spirits roam with gods, angels, devils, etc., but if it has no connection to, interaction with, or influence on, the observable physical world, it's just an imaginative fantasy, however comforting.
Do you have an estimate for that, or is it just a belief? When I think of people dying for causes, indoctrination, propaganda, and manipulation come to mind; wars, cults, fundamentalism, martyrdom.
The same things are worth fighting for as ever - family, community, freedom... but from our earliest recorded history, our tribal and territorial instincts have been hijacked, and our lives made commodities, to serve the purposes of others - by 'the will to power' as Neitzsche had it.
More like wanting your imaginary friend rather than a book about your imaginary friend; that's wishful thinking. Girlfriends are real, tangible people.
I was taught that Jesus exhorted the apostles to 'spread the Word' - that's what 'apostle' means:
"An apostle is a messenger and ambassador. Someone who champions a critical reform movement, belief or cause (more so in the Christian context). "
Apparently there's some debate about that among scholars.
The person of Jesus and the resurrection are parts of the story - the gospels are the source. If we can dismiss the details as irrelevant because the stories are just representing a greater idea, who's to say that the strangely varying resurrection accounts are not simply representations of the idea that Jesus, his works, and teachings, live on in the world through people's memories and beliefs?
I concede that beliefs are not necessarily coherent or consistent, but selecting one particular aspect of the stories as real, because you believe it, or because everything hinges on it, seems somewhat circular...
Yes, I've heard this kind of assertion before. AFAICT it basically means that there is no conceivable evidence that would change your mind. Correct me if I'm wrong about that.
As I already said, it didn't happen by chance. That's a straw man fallacy.
The former is contradictory by definition; the principle underlying the latter is demonstrable.
I'm curious to know why you believe some undemonstrable claims and not others. Many people simply believe what they've been brought up to believe, and dismiss inconsistencies so to retain what they've been taught to believe is important, e.g. "Everything hinges on the resurrection." This is known as confirmation bias.
Yes; they had to draw the line somewhere, and it was generally at 'medically inexplicable'. Inevitably, as medical knowledge developed, some of these events turned out to be extremely rare, but medically explicable. And, as I mentioned, given sufficient numbers, even extremely rare events should be expected.
I'm curious to know the criteria - besides prior belief.
Yet you accept that the main event described was real, despite that accounts with such conflicting descriptions wouldn't even be considered for presenting to a court as evidence of the main event, and the main event itself is a magical claim... So why - besides prior belief?
Why?
It was based on the particular words Paul used, which were apparently more usually associated with spiritual awakening rather than resurrection. But, OK.
How can we be so certain, when the stories differ so much? The whole thing could be a legend.
Exactly, for JFK we have multiple independent sources of verifiable evidence that are consistent with each other; for the resurrection stories, we don't.
Are they abandoning it because of the science or because of their religious beliefs?I misspoke.... .
Not many...
But some are.
Scientists abandoning evolution.
They're opting for intelligent design.
You should really read up on The Wedge Strategy.I don't know much about these movements, although, generally speaking, I'm against them.
I don't like radical anything...even radical Christianity is wrong and not what Jesus had in mind.
I was wondering if you were going to say something like this.Of course it does.
If you don't believe in an intelligent being, you'll say that the information in DNA came about by pure chance.
I know enough about science to know that we did NOT start from NOTHING....
I know enough to know that we cannot go back to before the big bang...and thus we know new knowledge in increments and nothing big has happened to explain our presence in this universe.
I know enough about science to know that our DNA, or the DNA of any other species, did not happen by chance because it's impossible.
You have a universe,,,something had to start it,,,and you do not know what.
Intelligent design makes much more sense than chemicals coming together in just the right amount and just the right ones to cause humanity (or life of any type).
This cannot even be repeated in a lab and we know what is needed for life.
So, I'll remove myself now.
However, I haven't learned ANYTHING from this thread...I thought I might.
And no need to be sorry about that....
I wasn't really expecting to.
As to fossils, yeah...where's the change?
I see animals in each strada, but I don't see the change.
No matter.
I know enough about science to know that our DNA, or the DNA of any other species, did not happen by chance because it's impossible.
I'm not saying evolution is a failure...I do wonder what we mean these days be evolution.Are they abandoning it because of the science or because of their religious beliefs?
Dr. Todd Wood Biologist and YEC:
Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.
I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)
Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure.
Answers in Genesis requires all people who work their to agree to this statement:
By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.
One has to wonder why they don't consider themselves as "fallible people who do not possess all information"?
I did. From your link.You should really read up on The Wedge Strategy.
Natural selection sounds right to me.I was wondering if you were going to say something like this.
While it is (mostly) true that mutations in DNA (information) came about by chance, the other half of the equation, natural selection is anything but random.
I don't remember whether I've posted this figure in this thread or not, but to me, this looks very much like one animal changing into another in the fossil record.I just don't believe one animal changed into a different animal.,,and the fossil record does not prove this. As far as I understand....
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?