• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

How did the universe come into existence?

Discussion in 'Christian Apologetics' started by Peter1000, Apr 20, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dave Ellis

    Dave Ellis Contributor

    +803
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    CA-Conservatives
    I couldn't care less what your book says, the physical evidence does not match the claims in the book. Therefore the book is wrong.
     
  2. Peter1000

    Peter1000 Well-Known Member

    +486
    Mormon
    Married
    Talk about intellectually honest. You have a 2 piece fossil of who knows what, but some scientist comes up with an entire story about that animal who supposedly lived millions of years ago, exactly what they actually looked like, what their habitat was, what their mating habits were, when they went extinct, etc., etc., etc. All from 2 pieces of fossil. I could give you many more overreaches from science if I had the time to go search. Overreach is a kind word.

    It is outrageously obsurd to say, look at this fossil and then come up with all the story as if it was found in a nearby pond. Do you realize what kind of pressure scientists are under to come up with these absurd stories??? Their funding depends on it. Their livelyhood depends on their coming up with these stories. Their godless religion depends on them coming up with these stories. So don't talk to me about absurd.

    I dismiss this tiny piece of actual evidence because the evidence is so weak as to stretch a normal persons perception of the whole made up image of what it looked like and the whole story surrounding it. It really is adsurd.

    This fossil does not conflict with my worldview. For all I know that fossil could be a few thousand years old, and we could have those same kinds of amphibians roaming around today (see images of the lungfish) So the fossil does not phase my religious world view in the least.

    Your world view should change though if this is the kind of evidence that you count on to keep your worldview in tact.
     
  3. Aman777

    Aman777 Christian

    +574
    Baptist
    Correction: The current consensus of godless science is provably False since the ToE cannot tell us where, when or how Humans had our origin. The best they can do is offer an incomplete view of the last 3.8 billion years and falsely assume that the sons of God (prehistoric people) magically evolved from Ape to Human, sometime in the past, and it cannot ever be repeated, and other easily refuted misconceptions.

    The physical evidence aligns perfectly IF you have the proper interpretation which is available ONLY to some people of the last days with the increased scientific knowledge, of today. Dan 12:4 Your problem seems to be fitting the ancient superstitious view of Genesis, dreamed up by religious men who lived thousands of years before education, and trying to make it fit today's facts. It never will.

    That is WHY I show that Scripture, science and history AGREE if you have the proper interpretation of Genesis. God Bless you
     
  4. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +177
    United States
    Presbyterian
    Single
    George Soros combined with other wealthy donors basically ARE the democratic party's driving machine. And during the 2016 campaign, there WAS evidence from undercover videos that the DNC paying homeless people to instigate violence at Trump rallies. Even some Demos admitted it, and fired the guy that was caught in the video.


    No, they do not have the right to pay for specifically violent protests. Inciting violence can be illegal.

    See above.

    According to the Constitution private entities are not required to provide their employees anything other than a reasonable wage and safe working conditions.

    The First Amendment trumps most regulations as long as no one is hurt physically or economically you can practice your religion anyway you see fit. And this concern about getting good parents for children is not just about religion, scientific studies have shown that children do better with a mother AND a father. In addition, studies have shown that pedophilia is higher among male gays than heteros. And lesbian couples have the highest rate of domestic violence than any type of couple. So this concern is not just based on religion it is also based on the safety and well being of the children. So if the states concern was truly about children and not just the feelings of a tiny voting constituency, they would at the least let RCC continue to only place children with hetero couples.
     
  5. Dave Ellis

    Dave Ellis Contributor

    +803
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    CA-Conservatives
    Objective value doesn't exist, value is always relative to the person evaluating something and is therefore subjective. Even if a god is involved, our value to him is still subjective to the will of that god.

    Even in things with a set value (for example a US $100 bill), the actual value can fluctuate wildly compared to other currencies and currency traders. Also, subjectivity enters into it where some people value money more than others. For example an out of work homeless guy would value a $100 bill far more than Bill Gates would.

    For us, we value our lives and the lives of other humans. That's the only value that matters when it comes to morality and how we treat each other.

    Amazing, in one paragraph you simultaneously try to take credit for all the civil rights advances, while disregarding the modern day civil rights issues, just like Christians of 200 years ago argued in favour of slavery, and Christians of 100 years ago argued against universal suffrage, and the Christians of 50 years ago argued for segregation.

    Just like the Christians of 100 years from now will try to take credit for the gay and trans rights movements, and claim it was christian values that lead to their full and equal integration into society.

    Secular people like myself also have a standard, and a goal. I'd argue it's a far more defensible one, and a far better one than what you find in any holy book.

    What would the secular humanists be doing that's a problem?

    Objective means true regardless of anyone's opinion or views on the matter. The moral commandments in the bible are god's views on morality.

    You can have an objective basis for morality, for example human well-being. However, someone's opinions on the matter, even a gods opinions are not objective.

     
  6. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +177
    United States
    Presbyterian
    Single
    While he was very young he was a practicing Catholic but as he got older he came to reject it according to his childhood friend August Kubizek and his father was an agnostic. His friend never saw him at Mass. Of course he claimed to be a Christian in public when he became a politician in order to get votes, but in private and in practice he hated Christianity. For example he said "The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity." And he planned on eradicating it after the war.


    But both denominations had become unorthodox and infected with liberal theology especially the protestants, read the excellent book about the German Church "Twisted Cross" by Doris Bergen. Thereby destroying the moral foundation of their nation and opening the door to pragmatic moral relativism.


    Evidence? But even if so, many of the Nazi leaders were either atheists like Martin Borman and Himmler or pantheists (which are practical atheists since the pantheist doesn't believe in any kind of moral revelation) with a few theologically liberal catholics and protestants.


    Not classical humanism but racist humanism, they based everything on the Aryan Man rather than Mankind as a whole which would be standard humanism.


    The Western understanding of human rights primarily came from Christianity and it from there that the Founders incorporated it into our government principles. Only in Christianity does the concept have an objectively rational foundation. And secularism is actually an offshoot of Christianity.

    No I am referring to the entire phrase "the Laws of Nature and [Laws of] Natures God." Jefferson who was actually a Unitarian not a deist, ie he believed in revealed morality from God, the second set of laws in the second part of the phrase refers to the moral law of God revealed in the Bible. All the founders believed that God revealed His moral law in the Bible even the deists and Unitarians who rejected the miracles of the bible.

    Most of the leaders of the womens rights movement were Christians in America and other Western Christian nations. In addition almost all abolitionists were Christians and many of the civil rights leaders of the 1960s were Christians such as MLK. There is no such thing as gay/trans rights. You have yet to prove that they exist. Of course, as humans they are entitled to all the standard human rights but no special sexual behavior rights. Your last statement is not true among nations founded on Christian principles.


    I meant 2000 emails going and coming.

    Again as with Christianity this does not prove it, but it is one thread of evidence among many.


    No, if I was doing that then I would ignore the actual definitions and context of the greek and Hebrew and just make it say whaterver I want but I am not as I stated above.


    Well nowhere in the video does he provide empirical observations of the eye cup rolling up into a well developed eye. And you have yet to provide any such examples of empirically observed macroevolutionary changes.


    No, as I explained we use the same means of determining purpose that archaeologists and forensic scientists use.


    No, as I stated it generally works for archaeologists and forensic scientists. Also, the SETI researchers.
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2017
  7. Dave Ellis

    Dave Ellis Contributor

    +803
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    CA-Conservatives

    If what you were saying was remotely accurate, the discovery would have been torn apart and savaged by other scientists in the field.

    So, I'm left with two options. Either all of the scientists in all of the relevant fields have no idea what they're talking about, or you have no idea what you're talking about. My money is on the latter option.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • List
  8. Dave Ellis

    Dave Ellis Contributor

    +803
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    CA-Conservatives
    Sure dude, whatever you say.

    The evidence still doesn't back your book though.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  9. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +177
    United States
    Presbyterian
    Single
    No, you misunderstood, if time is just the relative positions of objects in space, then the absence of those things does not restrict cause and effect from occurring.


    Umm ALL known "random" naturally occurring phenomenon are contingent.


    As I demonstrated earlier in this thread, throughout the history of science assuming the laws of logic are valid in every situation even extremely unique and mysterious situations (such as when we first studied outer space) has produced many of our greatest scientific discoveries. Not assuming them has produced next to nothing.

     
  10. Dave Ellis

    Dave Ellis Contributor

    +803
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    CA-Conservatives
    Yes, however time is not just the relative positions of objects in space. And again, you're talking about within space and subject to time. The big bang was the start of time and space as we know it. There was no "before" the big bang just as there was no space or time for a cause to exist in.

    There are two usages of the word contingent (not counting the noun usage).

    con·tin·gent
    kənˈtinjənt/
    adjective
    adjective: contingent
    1. 1.
      subject to chance.
      "the contingent nature of the job"
      synonyms: chance, accidental, fortuitous, possible, unforeseeable, unpredictable, random, haphazard
      "contingent events"
      • (of losses, liabilities, etc.) that can be anticipated to arise if a particular event occurs.
        "businesses need to be aware of their liabilities, both actual and contingent"
      • PHILOSOPHY
        true by virtue of the way things in fact are and not by logical necessity.
        "that men are living creatures is a contingent fact"
    2. 2.
      occurring or existing only if (certain other circumstances) are the case; dependent on.
      "resolution of the conflict was contingent on the signing of a ceasefire agreement"
      synonyms: dependent on, conditional on, subject to, determined by, hinging on, resting on
      "the merger is contingent on government approval"

    In your argument, are you referring to the first usage, whereas it's subject to chance? Or the second usage where it deals with dependencies? I assumed the second usage in my reply as I don't think you hold the position that a universe purposefully designed by god came around by chance.

    Yes, however every scientific investigation other than this one has dealt with things within the universe as we know it. The laws that govern this universe may not apply to whatever may exist outside of this universe.
     
  11. Peter1000

    Peter1000 Well-Known Member

    +486
    Mormon
    Married
    The scientists in this day would rather cover each other, rather than tear apart a colleague.

    Think about it, if you came up with what you thought was a great discovery, and everyone laughed you to shame and wrote nasty articles about you, what would you do the next time a colleague came up with what he thought was a great discovery??

    And I don't even care about whether it is true or not.

    Scientists today cover each other because they know that right around the corner they may stumble into a great discovery, and will need the support of the entire community to fire up the donors and keep the funding processes alive for another year.

    I believe scientists today are for the most part good men, trying to discover interesting things, but it is more money if they discover sensational million years old something that proves that God is not involved. I believe the donors primarily are godless and want a godless trail from the beginning. So that overarching goal puts a shroud on everything they say and do.

    To the point that a little piece of rock can tell the full story about a ?? that lived ?? that looked like?? and was an intermediary?? and so amphibians originally came from fish millions of years ago. Great story, great print, great money, but weak evidence, and nobody cares.
     
  12. Dave Ellis

    Dave Ellis Contributor

    +803
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    CA-Conservatives

    Yeah, except that's not remotely accurate. The peer review process is brutal, a scientist will make a greater name for himself by exposing a false discovery than the person who publicized the discovery. Furthermore, your reputation will grow by doing good work, and will be damaged by publishing papers that are clearly in error.

    But hey, if you want to buy into some conspiracy theory that says all the scientists are in cahoots just because the consensus goes against your personal opinions, so be it.
     
  13. Aman777

    Aman777 Christian

    +574
    Baptist
    Thanks for the opinion of someone who has a lot to learn. God Bless you
     
  14. Dave Ellis

    Dave Ellis Contributor

    +803
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    CA-Conservatives
    I do have a lot to learn, there's plenty about the world and universe as a whole that I don't know.

    I have very little to learn from someone like you though.
     
  15. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +177
    United States
    Presbyterian
    Single
    Sorry I was thinking of Batman and Gotham City. I get those two confused sometimes. But anyway Spider-Man is intentional fiction that everybody knows is fiction. As I stated before intentional fiction where everyone knows it is fiction was not invented until the middle ages. And there are no independent sources that treat him as real which is the case with Jesus. IOW if the NY Times had articles about Spider-man treating him as a real person then you might have something analogous, though you still have the problem of intentional fiction not existing at the time.


    No, Paul Bunyan has all the same problems that Spider-Man has above. No, most scholars believe Mark was written within 30 years of the fact. And there is evidence that John was written prior to 70 AD since he doesn't mention the fulfillment of Jesus' prediction of the destruction of the Temple. That would make all four gospels possibly written prior to 70 AD. And there IS evidence that two of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses. John and Matthew. We also have evidence from two witnesses that were initially skeptics and then were convinced by the resurrection and converted. Paul and James. No, Paul was an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ on the road to Damascus and he also met Jesus on that road.


    Not intentional fiction where the audience knows it is fiction. All those myths you reference were believed by most of their audiences to be actual historical events. Again, intentional fiction written for an audience that knows it is fiction was not invented until the middle ages.
     
  16. Peter1000

    Peter1000 Well-Known Member

    +486
    Mormon
    Married
    If you think for one minute that the truth outweighs money and fame, forget it.

    Science these days are about the money. Truth is secondary, and especially a truth that would go against evolution and would support creation. That kind of truth would get buried for sure under the pier review process, for sure. In fact the scientist that suggested it would be black listed and probably drummed out of his position.

    Because you are pro science you have a blind spot in you eye about the industry.
    You accept all, hook, line, and sinker. I accept some. I believe they snudge their data to get the outlook for their projects they need.

    I know, I am pretty pessimistic about scientists these days, especially in the case of global warming and evolution. What can I say, they cheat.
     
  17. Aman777

    Aman777 Christian

    +574
    Baptist
    You could learn how to live forever and never stop learning the real Truth. Or is it easier to lay back and hiss at those who will be alive a million years after you are forgotten? We shall traverse the entire Universe in the thousand year reign of Christ after the wicked are Judged. God Bless you
     
  18. Gene Parmesan

    Gene Parmesan Well-Known Member

    691
    +531
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Okay then. You have two scientists, one that just says "yep...evolution still appears to be true and here is the evidence," and you have another that says, "whoooops, looks like we got evolution all wrong and here is the evidence." Which one is going to go down in history as an award-winning acclaimed gosh-darn hero? Scientists have every incentive to overturn our current understanding of accepted theories. That is exactly how they get money and fame. Successful scientists don't just go through their career saying, "yep...what the last guy said." :thumbsup:
     
  19. Dave Ellis

    Dave Ellis Contributor

    +803
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    CA-Conservatives
    Again, utter nonsense. We still have clearly fictional stories written as intentional fiction from millennia before the time period we're talking about. We also have no independent contemporary sources for Jesus either.

    No serious historian gives dates that early. The only ones you'll find that claim that are hardcore fundamentalists with a clear bias to skew the dates super early. Any impartial, and most christian scholars say Mark was written first, most likely between 70-75AD. Matthew would have been fairly shortly after, around 80-90. Luke dates from the mid 90s to early 100s, and John is either very late first century or early second century. Some have dated John as late as 120AD. There's no evidence any of the gospel writers were eyewitnesses either.

    Even the story in the bible says Jesus came to Paul in a vision while on the road to Damascus, not in flesh and blood. Someone hearing voices coming from the sky doesn't count as an eyewitness, if anything that counts as mental illness.

    You're just simply wrong. Many other authors wrote spinoffs and satire of numerous ancient works. For example "True Story" written by Lucien of Samosata. True Story (written in the second century) is a satire and includes going into space. It's often called the first example of Science Fiction. True History - Wikipedia You can't honestly argue that someone writing a satire about going into space in the 2nd century was regarded as anything but intentional fiction. The whole point of the book was to lampoon other works that claimed unbelievable things actually happened.

    In fact, many well known Ancient Greek and Roman authors were satirists, and satire by definition is intentional fiction. Your claim that intentional fiction didn't exist until the middle ages is just flat out incorrect.
     
  20. Dave Ellis

    Dave Ellis Contributor

    +803
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    CA-Conservatives
    Whatever dude, if you want to buy into conspiracy theories, that's your business. However, what you are portraying is flat out wrong.

    Any reputable journal won't even publish a work unless it's passed peer review. The journal won't risk its reputation (and therefore earning potential) unless vigorous impartial review has been done. Likewise, the peers that will be testing the phenomena described in a given paper have no particular vested interest in making someone else wealthy. If the results in the paper hold up, they report that. If they get different results from what was in the paper, they report that and the paper is generally disregarded. That's how peer review works.

    Nobody gets rich by confirming discoveries. People get rich by overturning previous ideas. That's how virtually every great scientist in the last few hundred years has made a name for themselves.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...