-
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.
Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...
- Thread starter Neogaia777
- Start date
- Status
Butterfly99
Getting ready for spring break. Cya!
I was replying to Smaneck who asked me "As a Christian doesn't it annoy you when your fellow believers make your religion look idiotic?" She's not a Christian according to her label. It looks like she's been on here way longer than I have too. Betting she's older than I am too. I'm 16. So maybe she's got more experience with this stuff. Why not ask her what she means about making my religion look idiotic if you don't get it.
Like I said, I don't know how many ppl on here are for real. Cause there's a thread about "fundies saying the darndest things" or something like that. It's about some site where ppl post really dumb or crazy things Christians have written. The thing is Idk how many of those ppl who write dumb / crazy stuff believe in what they're writing for real & how many are just getting their kicks having their stuff put onto sites like that. It's a way of making Christians look bad. Trolling. I also saw a link once to a fake forum that looks real that is all about satire. So yeah I don't automatically just believe what ppl say on the internet. That's not a bad thing.
Upvote
0
smaneck
Baha'i
In all fairness to Butterfly, I'm the one who introduced the idea that they were making Christianity look idiotic. Yes, of course I know Christians come in all shapes and sizes. Unfortunately in forums such as this the science-deniers and the right-wing extremists tend to dominate.
Upvote
0
smaneck
Baha'i
Actually, the cone heads are not fake. It is called cradle-boarding and was done by a lot of cultures:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_cranial_deformation
It is what some people want to do with these skulls that is fake:
http://martinjclemens.com/paracas-elongated-skull-dna-results-what-results/
Upvote
0
Cradle-boarding cannot increase the volume of a skull. This is the common retort, however, so you are not the first.
Cradle boarding was done to imitate these great beings. It deforms the skull but the volume doesn't increase. These giant skulls with double rows of teeth in their jaws, were not caused by cradle boarding.
Upvote
0
Don't sell yourself short because of your age. At 16, your already exhibiting and applying a better standard of reason and logic than individuals I know that are 60. You may lack the collection of personal experience that others have, but you can more than compensate with education, understanding, the application of proper skepticism and the use of the tools of logical thinking.
I'd say most of them are serious. They're too committed not to be. Yes, there are trolls here from time to time, but they disappear once they don't get the reaction they want. Certain poster here are what I'd refer to a true believers of the worst sort - opposition to their ideas, exposure of flaws in their argument/evidence and the provision of evidence contrary to their point only serve to make them double down on their original point. Opposition increases their own belief in their righteousness.
Upvote
0
You are correct. I should have said, " could it be that cradle boarding was done to imitate this great but lost race of giants."?
However, I still stand that cradle boarding cannot increase the volume of a cranium. Therefore, this is not the result of cradle boarding.
I should also note that the human skull has different plates, separated by suture lines. These extra large cone head skulls do not have the human suture lines. They are all missing this tell tale trait.
check this site:
http://12160.info/profiles/blogs/the-elongated-skull-race-of-people-meet-your-ancestors
Upvote
0
Have you ever considered getting scientific information from actual science sources instead of blogs by people who have no professional experience in the areas they write about? And how about the extremely unprofessional statements they make, "Ridiculously science claims that this was caused by an old custom,". And I'm not even going to comment on their extra terrestrial alien foolishness.
Try some actual science for once.
http://journals.lww.com/neurosurger..._of_the_Skull_in_Pre_Columbian_South.114.aspx
Upvote
0
If you check my last post, you will see that boards cannot change suture lines in a skull or increase the volume of a cranium.
Upvote
0
Warden_of_the_Storm
Well-Known Member
- Oct 16, 2015
- 15,133
- 7,452
- 31
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- Single
Is it just me or does it seem that, no matter the original thread topic, JacksBratt always manages to work it back to his love of giants?
Upvote
0
James Wilson
Newbie
- Aug 13, 2011
- 144
- 11
- Faith
- Pentecostal
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...
I have encountered such confidence in this string by evolutionists. In my UC-Berkeley physics class my professor said, “Everything I learned when I graduated from the university is now wrong.” Yet in spite of the errors of the past, many still say, “We know that we know that we know.”
But we don’t know what we don’t know.
Thomas Kuhn wrote the book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which devastated the scientific community by saying “All the assumptions of a culture are held in common, and assumed to be fact. These assumptions/turned fact are transmitted by educational institutions and authorities” (paraphrase). And the scientists hounded him until he recanted his premise (I thought we’d gotten smarter after forcing Galileo to recant)
Yet Kuhn created the marvelous concept of a ‘paradigm change’ where we take the facts of yesterday and combine them with new assumptions into tomorrow’s astounding new theories, such as the overnight switch from Newtonian physics to Einsteinian… the seed of the atomic era and modern physics. We are truly on shaky ground as scientists if we don’t acknowledge the error and stagnation in assumptions we don’t know are just that… assumptions.
Consider Einstein, the first and most famous advocate of Intelligent Design.
He objected at every opportunity to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Theory and its resultant impacts upon quantum physics. He phrased his opposition by appealing to God, “God does not play dice with the universe” (a popular paraphrase of his more unwieldy statement). He never admitted his defeat in this area, though it was engineered by putting words into the mouth of the deceased scientist that were never authenticated.
Einstein also said, “If you encounter a problem you cannot solve, imagine how you would solve it if you were God. And see if He did it that way.” Another appeal to God in the hallowed halls of science.
He talked about the mysteries of the universe being like a library full of books and that, if a scientist cooperated with God, He will open these books and these mysteries to that scientist. This was Einstein’s statement of his belief that God worked in simplicity and not complexity. That if a scientist/theoretician were patient, a more perfect solution/theory would be revealed. Heisenberg and modern quantum physics were too impatient.
Einstein would not be allowed to teach in this way in many public schools and universities. What a terrible loss. Yet many evolutionists are proud that they have eliminated God from ANY SCIENTIST’S solving of theories! They have also eliminated future and past Einsteins from a more complete understanding of the universe. What a loss!
And scientists should not believe that just because an issue has been settled, it’s settled correctly. In the 20th Century, plate tectonics made an appearance, was rejected and decades later reappeared and was approved. But look at the waste of time and careers.
Just because Einstein’s Intelligent Design was rejected doesn’t make it a correct decision. How much of his astounding success was due to his bent toward simplicity instead of quick-and-complicated?
I have encountered such confidence in this string by evolutionists. In my UC-Berkeley physics class my professor said, “Everything I learned when I graduated from the university is now wrong.” Yet in spite of the errors of the past, many still say, “We know that we know that we know.”
But we don’t know what we don’t know.
Thomas Kuhn wrote the book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which devastated the scientific community by saying “All the assumptions of a culture are held in common, and assumed to be fact. These assumptions/turned fact are transmitted by educational institutions and authorities” (paraphrase). And the scientists hounded him until he recanted his premise (I thought we’d gotten smarter after forcing Galileo to recant)
Yet Kuhn created the marvelous concept of a ‘paradigm change’ where we take the facts of yesterday and combine them with new assumptions into tomorrow’s astounding new theories, such as the overnight switch from Newtonian physics to Einsteinian… the seed of the atomic era and modern physics. We are truly on shaky ground as scientists if we don’t acknowledge the error and stagnation in assumptions we don’t know are just that… assumptions.
Consider Einstein, the first and most famous advocate of Intelligent Design.
He objected at every opportunity to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Theory and its resultant impacts upon quantum physics. He phrased his opposition by appealing to God, “God does not play dice with the universe” (a popular paraphrase of his more unwieldy statement). He never admitted his defeat in this area, though it was engineered by putting words into the mouth of the deceased scientist that were never authenticated.
Einstein also said, “If you encounter a problem you cannot solve, imagine how you would solve it if you were God. And see if He did it that way.” Another appeal to God in the hallowed halls of science.
He talked about the mysteries of the universe being like a library full of books and that, if a scientist cooperated with God, He will open these books and these mysteries to that scientist. This was Einstein’s statement of his belief that God worked in simplicity and not complexity. That if a scientist/theoretician were patient, a more perfect solution/theory would be revealed. Heisenberg and modern quantum physics were too impatient.
Einstein would not be allowed to teach in this way in many public schools and universities. What a terrible loss. Yet many evolutionists are proud that they have eliminated God from ANY SCIENTIST’S solving of theories! They have also eliminated future and past Einsteins from a more complete understanding of the universe. What a loss!
And scientists should not believe that just because an issue has been settled, it’s settled correctly. In the 20th Century, plate tectonics made an appearance, was rejected and decades later reappeared and was approved. But look at the waste of time and careers.
Just because Einstein’s Intelligent Design was rejected doesn’t make it a correct decision. How much of his astounding success was due to his bent toward simplicity instead of quick-and-complicated?
Upvote
0
lesliedellow
Member
- Sep 20, 2010
- 9,654
- 2,582
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
Did he? In that case how did he manage to account for the fact that radio sets, based upon a supposedly completely erroneous physics, seemed to work okay? If he did say that, or anything like it, and he had not recently suffered a stroke which had almost completely destroyed his brain, he was engaging in hyperbole.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Yes, the scientific community was devastated when they had to throw out all of those experimental results because Kuhn wrote a book. Oh wait, that didn't happen.
What assumptions are you talking about, as they relate to the topic?
That's completely untrue. Einstein did not believe in creationism.
Why do people always think that when they see the word "God" that it is referring to the God they believe in?
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."--Albert Einstein
Upvote
0
According to simple physics. Let's see you take a soccer ball, fill it with air. Then bind it with rope and make it twice it's size....
Physics.
The sutures in the skull are fact. Human skulls have tell tale suture lines where the plates grow together. These skulls have totally different suture lines....
Upvote
0
The OP was questioning his belief in evolution and how it fits with the OT....
Giants in the OT and in actual proven facts and archaeological finds backs up the OT....
See the connection.
The fact that there were actually a race of Giants in the Middle East and in the Americas, long before the natives came here, is unnerving to many. It destroys our written false history and amplifies the truth of the Biblical accounts.
Upvote
0
That's not how bone sutures work.
You do realize that there are no bone sutures in the skulls of children, right?
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
