If you are a parent, you'll understand the value of letting a child learn a lesson for themselves without always intervening.
Upvote
0
-
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.
Let's define "faith"
- Thread starter KnowtheSilence
- Start date
If you are a parent, you'll understand the value of letting a child learn a lesson for themselves without always intervening.
Archaeopteryx
Wanderer
Not if that lesson involved them being harmed or placed in danger. I would be a horrible parent if I allowed my hypothetical children to do whatever they please, regardless of whatever potential harm may befall them, their siblings or the rest of the family. Moreover, if I wanted a relationship with my children, I wouldn't make myself absent from their lives, offering only the promise of some future encounter after their deaths.
Upvote
0
The metaphor does break down when perceived through dogmatic lenses.
I believe we choose to be born and with guidance choose much of the circumstances that befall us in life. I believe we have been doing this and resting in God between lives for a very very long time.
How long does it take to grow a fully faceted soul? Perhaps God leaves it up to the soul and does not interfere. We have been given all the tools necessary to develop ourselves. We are made in the Image of God. When its the last time you went out into the woods and fasted, sought communion and unfolded? That's how we did it in the old days.
The Kingdom of heaven is within us and all around us. Most are to folded up to notice. How does one see outside the blinders of their entrainment by world? By stepping out of it for a while.
You have to seek to find. If you do not want it, why lament not having it?
Upvote
0
Denial of the obvious, right.
I'd recommend Richard Carrier's book defending metaphysical naturalism as a starting point if you'd like to learn more: Sense and Goodness Without God.
There is a large section dealing with thoughts and mind-brain physicalism, with footnotes you can use if you want to find more in-depth resources on the same.
Upvote
0
If these ideas actually had anything to do with the Christian god, scientists could have just read about it in the Bible and saved a bunch of time. But for some reason, theologians didn't know about this miraculous connection until after scientists discovered <insert random science topic here>. Wonder why that is...
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
- Nov 4, 2013
- 16,127
- 1,786
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Yes thats what Ive been saying. It has taken us to get to the point of quantum physics to see this. Have you noticed that sinse we have discovered the world of quantum physics that more scientists are talking about strange and weird theories like holograms, string theory and multi universes. Some are talking about other dimensions, spiritual dimensions, conciseness and Biocentrism. Thats because what they are seeing is causing them to come up with these type of explanations. But they are very close to verging on the supernatural and the qualities that have always been attributed to God.
Thats because I believe they have arrived at the point in quantum physics where existence comes into our reality. How much further can we go back with experiments such as with the large hadron collider. We are virtually looking at nothing now. So they are looking at part of how God has created things. One of the main things I hear about any description of the quantum world is that it is hard for scientists to comprehend. That is because they are seeing some of the qualities of God. But this all couldn't been seen until we got to this point. Before then people could wonder about certain things and many thought there was something going on beyond our reality but didn't know what it was. To me its the same for when I look at the universe of read about quantum physics. Its incredible and amazing and beyond our understanding. But I believe it is all not some naturalistic random thing that was created out of chaos. Its complex and its designed and it beyond anything that the greatest minds will ever understand.
Upvote
0
Archaeopteryx
Wanderer
I think you missed the point KC was making. It seems that the Bible only reveals these ostensibly prescient insights to us after science has already illuminated them. It doesn't reveal these insights prior to scientific discovery nor does it direct scientists toward making these discoveries, though it apparently deserves some measure of credit for them anyway. What KC seems to be suggesting is that religious apologists are cherry-picking from scriptures on one hand and from science on the other, and then feigning surprise when the results of their cherry-picking align with the religious preconceptions that guided their cherry-picking.
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
- Nov 4, 2013
- 16,127
- 1,786
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
But wasn't the bible written well before science has shone the light on these discoveries of the quantum world. We couldn't know about what was down at the point of nothingness until we got there with modern advances. But when we did its strange that what we are seeing has many of the hallmarks of what the bible describes God as. Its strange that now even scientists are talking along lines of something beyond our reality at work and producing these almost magical abilities. I am not cherry picking anything. This is what the bible says about Gods creative ability. All of the verses for His creation are similar and talk about creating something out of nothing and God being all powerful and everywhere and that he holds all things together.
The bible is not a science book and isn't trying to predict anything scientific. It just so happens that it wasn't going to be until science gets to a point of looking at how existence comes about that we begin to see God like qualities. Science has been progressing towards the point of existence for many years. Not just in quantum physics but in many fields like genetics as well. And to a point we are seeing some unusual things in genetics as well. But both fields need a lot more investigation. But I believe that from now on that we have reached this point that we will see a lot more of these types of discoveries. Of course science and atheists will continue to say that there is an explanation and logical naturalistic reason for all this. But I believe that they will just keep bringing up more things that they cant explain and can never really comprehend. Because its looking at Gods creation.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Archaeopteryx
Wanderer
The Bible also describes God as creating dry land and plants prior to creating the sun and stars. Yet we know that the stars precede the origin of land and plant-life. This inconvenient inconsistency is not something you mention because you are focused only on whatever similarities you can draw between what the Bible claims and what science has found. You are cherry-picking, steve. It's blatantly obvious. You select only those passages that could be construed as aligning with modern-day cosmology, while ignoring those passages that clearly do not comport with it.
Yes, steve, that's how science progresses. We make discoveries that lead to more questions. We gain in knowledge, but also discover matters on which we are ignorant and on which further inquiry is needed. You've put forward yet another God of the gaps argument.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Archaeopteryx
Wanderer
By the way, steve, you aren't the only person who cherry-picks from his scriptures. Muslim apologists do this as well. A quick Google search reveals multiple passages from the Quran that apologists are fond of cherry-picking and mashing together with modern-day cosmology.
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
- Nov 4, 2013
- 16,127
- 1,786
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Yes but we are talking about a special creation event here. We dont know what the earth represented back then. Was it also a special place which was like heaven like in the garden or paradise before it actually became the materialistic place we know today. God said let there be light on day one and who knows what this light was. But certainly there are many forms of Light. Gods light can also illuminate things and give life as well and the bible says this. The Hebrew for the light mentioned in verse 3 alludes to a source of or light only. The meaning given to the light in day 4 is translated as light bearers or permanent source of light. This indicates not only for light to illuminate but also as time keeping for when man arrived.
In revelations it talks about a new heaven and a new earth so there is something special about the earth and it seems to be a place that will go on beyond the reality that we know of. So it may well have been around before the reality that we understand started as well. But all this is part of a supernatural event so you cant start putting natural constraints on it here and there. We all know from discoveries that the real world at work is this invisible one that is the quantum world. So the material world we see is something that can change and even be an illusion or something that is just a manifestation of the quantum world. The observer makes it a reality so there is something going on between the quantum level and our reality that we dont understand.
If you say I am cherry picking then you have mentioned one thing that I and any theologian that knows the bible will tell you has other meanings when studied with the original language and will dispute. But lets say that this is something I am not including like you say. This is only one thing and what I have been talking about is all over the bible in one way or another and all saying the same thing. So which should I gauge what describes Gods creative qualities. The qualities that are repeated in different places all over the bible or a small section that you have misinterpreted because you havnt understood what it actually represents. So I am not cherry picking because I am just quoting what the majority of the bible says. I am not going to try and find one off verses that may need some further meaning. That would be reverse cherry picking
I cant miss them they are all over the bible. Everyone has known this even non believers. How often have you heard throughout your life and in media or from others that God is everywhere. Or God knows everything or He is all powerful or omnipresent. I dont need to focus on these things because everyone else has anyway. It just so happens that science is now catching up to what God was all about anyway. And I am not the one describing the quantum world the way some do, its the scientists. But even so think about it for a minute. Even if I was matching some things what is wrong with that. This is exactly what evolution does. They look for the similarities in creatures to show transitions but overlook the many dis similar things. If your trying to show something is related you are going to look for the similarities of course. But look for the dis similar things about God and His qualities regarding creation. See how many you find that dont describe him like what I have said.
But what science has discovered about quantum world and finely tuned universes for example doesn't have a answer that will fit what they know about our reality and relativity. That's why they come up with hologram and multi universe theories because there isn't a logical answer to find. They have to propose far fetched explanations because this is what the evidence is showing and pointing to.
Some say that they will never find an answer because it is beyond our reality and that this is a place we can never go to to find out. So its always going to be indirect evidence and not something we can test by handling it or going there to try it out. So its not so much that there's a answer out there in the future that they are yet to find which will make everything fall into place. Its that there isn't one to find that will answer their questions.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Colter
Member
Atheism is faith in the doctrines of doubt; although a transcendent phenomenon, life is ultimately meaningless. The doctrines of doubt are the remnants of the Lucifer rebellion, a high administrator who lost faith in the unseen Father.
Belief is ultimately a faith trust in the goodness and purpose of God, the first source and center of all reality.
Belief is ultimately a faith trust in the goodness and purpose of God, the first source and center of all reality.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Archaeopteryx
Wanderer
Oh steve...
Yes, you are cherry-picking, and now you're rationalising your cherry-picking. Your narrative thus far has been: "The findings of science align with what the Bible describes God as." To support this, you've cherry-picked select passages and matched them to certain scientific findings, insisting that there is some connection there, however tenuous. I say "tenuous" because, as Moriarty already explained, findings on the quantum level do not necessarily scale up in the way you assume that they do. You ignore, however, other passages (of which there are many) that clearly do not support the narrative you're trying to sell. But I guess you deserve credit for using "the majority" of the inerrant, inspired book!
What's wrong with that? You're cherry-picking, that's what's wrong. The only way you can support your narrative is by excluding Biblical passages inconsistent with it.
No steve, evolutionary biologists would get in trouble for cherry-picking. Scientists who profligately cherry-pick from their data are likely to draw ire from the scientific community, at a cost to their reputation. By contrast, it seems that some apologists base their reputation on their ability to cherry-pick.
I've already examined one. Would you like to examine others?
Which doesn't make Goddidit a satisfying answer in its own right.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
- Nov 4, 2013
- 16,127
- 1,786
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
So let me get this straight. You say I'm cherry picking some verses out and then you say you will give me credit for using the majority of the bible for doing so. Well how is it cherry picking when I'm using the majority of the bible to find these verses like you say. The other point is we are talking about God as He relates to creation. So unless you can find some verses that say something different about Gods qualities as a Creator then I guess I am not cherry picking.
Oh steve...
Yes, you are cherry-picking, and now you're rationalising your cherry-picking. Your narrative thus far has been: "The findings of science align with what the Bible describes God as." To support this, you've cherry-picked select passages and matched them to certain scientific findings, insisting that there is some connection there, however tenuous. I say "tenuous" because, as Moriarty already explained, findings on the quantum level do not necessarily scale up in the way you assume that they do. You ignore, however, other passages (of which there are many) that clearly do not support the narrative you're trying to sell. But I guess you deserve credit for using "the majority" of the inerrant, inspired book!
As far as Moriarty is saying he cant really make this statement as he doesn't really know what the quantum world scales up to. Most scientists dont know but many are saying things that are along the lines of supernatural events. Thats scientists saying that not me or religion.
So when you want to establish that something may have a similar effect what do you do. Do you look for things that are not similar or look for things that are similar. Now you are saying I am cherry picking for finding verses that show Gods qualities as a creator. Look them up yourself. How else do you thing the bible would describe a creator God. It seems now I cant even mention what the bible says about God as a creator.
You have got to be joking. You obviously have more faith in them and what they present than a person would to God. Investigations have even exposed scientists fudging data to the point of fraud and its been fairly rampant. You dont really apply the same vigor to the men in white coats do you. It is in many of their interests to have data going the way they want to present their certain hypothesis. Its tied to funding and reputations.
But if we take say a creature like [FONT=arial, helvetica][FONT=arial, helvetica]Archaeopteryx, opps thats your name. Oh well it was placed at the base of the dino to bird tree and held up as the champion transitional fossil for years. But recent discoveries found that it was actually one of the many dinos that happen to have feathers. In fact it wasn't even on the bird line. Some scientists had questioned its status for some time saying that several of its key features that linked it were not bird like but Dino like.[/FONT][/FONT] But many didn't want to acknowledge this and tried to hold onto the claims. This is one example. The skulls of Georgie are another and so is the transition for whale like Pakicetus. There are many that have been exaggerated and made out to be more than they are. Even with nicely place shapes on the bones with features added in to make them look more like the creatures they want to connect with without any verification that this was the case.
This has been repeated time and time again by scientists working in this field because what they are doing is looking back in time like a cold case and trying to picture what happened and what things were like. So its often left up to speculation and interpretation. This can be way off the mark and influenced by pre conceived beliefs. Foe example if a fossil if fond near another and its hard to get the date then the date of the other fossil is used as the date. But when this happens to be out of line with how they have presented evolution then they dont use it. Its not until you start to peel off some of what they have presented that you start to see whats happening. But you like so many just believe because they are scientists and they say its true.
National Geographic is popularly regarded as an important scientific magazine that carries out research all over the planet and shares the results with its readers. The magazine is a major source of information in a great number of important areas, yet few readers are aware of the extent to which it passes this information through an ideological filter before handing it on to its readers, and sometimes even twists the data according to the demands of this ideology and builds-up completely imaginary stories.
- A Whale Fantasy from National Geographic -
Scientists are accused of distorting theory of human evolution by misdating bones
Scientists are accused of distorting theory of human evolution by misdating bones | Science | The Observer
The Overselling of Ardipithecus ramidus
Given that these fossils come from the realm of science and not the world of celebrity gossip, why is the hype necessary in the first place? Discover Magazine is now saying "The bones of our ancestors do not speak across time with ultimate clarity." That's an understatement--but given how everyone previously fawned over Ardi's "missing link" status, could it be that there is more than mere science driving the promotion of these missing links?
The Overselling of <i>Ardipithecus ramidus</i>
"In other words, Archaeopteryx was no longer a bird," Lawrence Witmer, a professor at Ohio university's Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine, said in a commentary, also in Nature.
One reason it has been so hard for biologists to embrace this idea may have more to do with history than science.
Read more: Archaeopteryx, the ancestor of all birds, knocked from its perch | MNN - Mother Nature Network
We are talking about Gods creative qualities so yes we would need to see things about His creative abilities and qualities. By the way the example you have given regardless of you misinterpreting it still talks about God doing some pretty amazing things in the supernatural. So whether He created one light or another light or the land at one stage or another its still shows that His creative qualities are supernatural. They still show that He is able to make material things come into existence from the invisible world. This is still the same as what I was saying before.
Well if you would have been following what I have said I have been saying that what we see attributed to God is similar to what some scientists are saying when they are describing how the quantum world is. I have been saying that if scientists are putting forward these far fetched hypothesis like hologram and multi universe theories that why cant we also include the God hypothesis. Because all the evidence for both are indirect and we cant prove them directly because they are all based in another world or realm. I havnt been saying that the quantum world is God but it sure seems that way to me. Big difference.
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
- Nov 4, 2013
- 16,127
- 1,786
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
So let me get this straight. You say I'm cherry picking some verses out and then you say you will give me credit for using the majority of the bible for doing so. Well how is it cherry picking when I'm using the majority of the bible to find these verses like you say. The other point is we are talking about God as He relates to creation. So unless you can find some verses that say something different about Gods qualities as a Creator then I guess I am not cherry picking.
Oh steve...
Yes, you are cherry-picking, and now you're rationalising your cherry-picking. Your narrative thus far has been: "The findings of science align with what the Bible describes God as." To support this, you've cherry-picked select passages and matched them to certain scientific findings, insisting that there is some connection there, however tenuous. I say "tenuous" because, as Moriarty already explained, findings on the quantum level do not necessarily scale up in the way you assume that they do. You ignore, however, other passages (of which there are many) that clearly do not support the narrative you're trying to sell. But I guess you deserve credit for using "the majority" of the inerrant, inspired book!
As far as Moriarty is saying he cant really make this statement as he doesn't really know what the quantum world scales up to. Most scientists dont know but many are saying things that are along the lines of supernatural events. Thats scientists saying that not me or religion.
So when you want to establish that something may have a similar effect what do you do. Do you look for things that are not similar or look for things that are similar. Now you are saying I am cherry picking for finding verses that show Gods qualities as a creator. Look them up yourself. How else do you think the bible would describe a creator God. It seems now I cant even mention what the bible says about God as a creator.
You have got to be joking. You obviously have more faith in them and what they present than a person would to God. Investigations have even exposed scientists fudging data to the point of fraud and its been fairly rampant. You dont really apply the same vigor to the men in white coats do you. It is in many of their interests to have data going the way they want to present their certain hypothesis. Its tied to funding and reputations.
But if we take say a creature like [FONT=arial, helvetica][FONT=arial, helvetica]Archaeopteryx, opps thats your name. Oh well it was placed at the base of the dino to bird tree and held up as the champion transitional fossil for years. But recent discoveries found that it was actually one of the many dinos that happen to have feathers. In fact it wasn't even on the bird line. Some scientists had questioned its status for some time saying that several of its key features that linked it were not bird like but Dino like.[/FONT][/FONT] But many didn't want to acknowledge this and tried to hold onto the claims. This is one example. The skulls of Georgie are another and so is the transition for whale like Pakicetus. There are many that have been exaggerated and made out to be more than they are. Even with nicely place shapes on the bones with features added in to make them look more like the creatures they want to connect with without any verification that this was the case.
This has been repeated time and time again by scientists working in this field because what they are doing is looking back in time like a cold case and trying to picture what happened and what things were like. So its often left up to speculation and interpretation. This can be way off the mark and influenced by pre conceived beliefs. Foe example if a fossil if fond near another and its hard to get the date then the date of the other fossil is used as the date. But when this happens to be out of line with how they have presented evolution then they dont use it. Its not until you start to peel off some of what they have presented that you start to see whats happening. But you like so many just believe because they are scientists and they say its true.
National Geographic is popularly regarded as an important scientific magazine that carries out research all over the planet and shares the results with its readers. The magazine is a major source of information in a great number of important areas, yet few readers are aware of the extent to which it passes this information through an ideological filter before handing it on to its readers, and sometimes even twists the data according to the demands of this ideology and builds-up completely imaginary stories.
- A Whale Fantasy from National Geographic -
Scientists are accused of distorting theory of human evolution by misdating bones
Scientists are accused of distorting theory of human evolution by misdating bones | Science | The Observer
The Overselling of Ardipithecus ramidus
Given that these fossils come from the realm of science and not the world of celebrity gossip, why is the hype necessary in the first place? Discover Magazine is now saying "The bones of our ancestors do not speak across time with ultimate clarity." That's an understatement--but given how everyone previously fawned over Ardi's "missing link" status, could it be that there is more than mere science driving the promotion of these missing links?
The Overselling of <i>Ardipithecus ramidus</i>
"In other words, Archaeopteryx was no longer a bird," Lawrence Witmer, a professor at Ohio university's Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine, said in a commentary, also in Nature.
One reason it has been so hard for biologists to embrace this idea may have more to do with history than science.
Read more: Archaeopteryx, the ancestor of all birds, knocked from its perch | MNN - Mother Nature Network
We are talking about Gods creative qualities so yes we would need to see things about His creative abilities and qualities. By the way the example you have given regardless of you misinterpreting it still talks about God doing some pretty amazing things in the supernatural. So whether He created one light or another light or the land at one stage or another its still shows that His creative qualities are supernatural. They still show that He is able to make material things come into existence from the invisible world. This is still the same as what I was saying before.
Well if you would have been following what I have said I have been saying that what we see attributed to God is similar to what some scientists are saying when they are describing how the quantum world is. I have been saying that if scientists are putting forward these far fetched hypothesis like hologram and multi universe theories that why cant we also include the God hypothesis. Because all the evidence for both are indirect and we cant prove them directly because they are all based in another world or realm. I havnt been saying that the quantum world is God but it sure seems that way to me. Big difference.
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
- Nov 4, 2013
- 16,127
- 1,786
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
So let me get this straight. You say I'm cherry picking some verses out and then you say you will give me credit for using the majority of the bible for doing so. Well how is it cherry picking when I'm using the majority of the bible to find these verses like you say. The other point is we are talking about God as He relates to creation. So unless you can find some verses that say something different about Gods qualities as a Creator then I guess I am not cherry picking.
Oh steve...
Yes, you are cherry-picking, and now you're rationalising your cherry-picking. Your narrative thus far has been: "The findings of science align with what the Bible describes God as." To support this, you've cherry-picked select passages and matched them to certain scientific findings, insisting that there is some connection there, however tenuous. I say "tenuous" because, as Moriarty already explained, findings on the quantum level do not necessarily scale up in the way you assume that they do. You ignore, however, other passages (of which there are many) that clearly do not support the narrative you're trying to sell. But I guess you deserve credit for using "the majority" of the inerrant, inspired book!
As far as Moriarty is saying he cant really make this statement as he doesn't really know what the quantum world scales up to. Most scientists dont know but many are saying things that are along the lines of supernatural events. Thats scientists saying that not me or religion.
So when you want to establish that something may have a similar effect what do you do. Do you look for things that are not similar or look for things that are similar. Now you are saying I am cherry picking for finding verses that show Gods qualities as a creator. Look them up yourself. How else do you think the bible would describe a creator God. It seems now I cant even mention what the bible says about God as a creator.
You have got to be joking. You obviously have more faith in them and what they present than a person would to God. Investigations have even exposed scientists fudging data to the point of fraud and its been fairly rampant. You dont really apply the same vigor to the men in white coats do you. It is in many of their interests to have data going the way they want to present their certain hypothesis. Its tied to funding and reputations.
But if we take say a creature like [FONT=arial, helvetica][FONT=arial, helvetica]Archaeopteryx, opps thats your name. Oh well it was placed at the base of the dino to bird tree and held up as the champion transitional fossil for years. But recent discoveries found that it was actually one of the many dinos that happen to have feathers. In fact it wasn't even on the bird line. Some scientists had questioned its status for some time saying that several of its key features that linked it were not bird like but Dino like.[/FONT][/FONT] But many didn't want to acknowledge this and tried to hold onto the claims. This is one example. The skulls of Georgie are another and so is the transition for whale like Pakicetus. There are many that have been exaggerated and made out to be more than they are. Even with nicely place shapes on the bones with features added in to make them look more like the creatures they want to connect with without any verification that this was the case.
This has been repeated time and time again by scientists working in this field because what they are doing is looking back in time like a cold case and trying to picture what happened and what things were like. So its often left up to speculation and interpretation. This can be way off the mark and influenced by pre conceived beliefs. For example if a fossil is found near another and its hard to get the date then the date of the other fossil is used as the date. But when this happens to be out of line with how they have presented evolution then they dont use it. Its not until you start to peel off some of what they have presented that you start to see whats happening. But you like so many just believe because they are scientists and they say its true.
National Geographic is popularly regarded as an important scientific magazine that carries out research all over the planet and shares the results with its readers. The magazine is a major source of information in a great number of important areas, yet few readers are aware of the extent to which it passes this information through an ideological filter before handing it on to its readers, and sometimes even twists the data according to the demands of this ideology and builds-up completely imaginary stories.
- A Whale Fantasy from National Geographic -
Scientists are accused of distorting theory of human evolution by misdating bones
Scientists are accused of distorting theory of human evolution by misdating bones | Science | The Observer
The Overselling of Ardipithecus ramidus
Given that these fossils come from the realm of science and not the world of celebrity gossip, why is the hype necessary in the first place? Discover Magazine is now saying "The bones of our ancestors do not speak across time with ultimate clarity." That's an understatement--but given how everyone previously fawned over Ardi's "missing link" status, could it be that there is more than mere science driving the promotion of these missing links?
The Overselling of <i>Ardipithecus ramidus</i>
"In other words, Archaeopteryx was no longer a bird," Lawrence Witmer, a professor at Ohio university's Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine, said in a commentary, also in Nature.
One reason it has been so hard for biologists to embrace this idea may have more to do with history than science.
Read more: Archaeopteryx, the ancestor of all birds, knocked from its perch | MNN - Mother Nature Network
We are talking about Gods creative qualities so yes we would need to see things about His creative abilities and qualities. By the way the example you have given regardless of you misinterpreting it still talks about God doing some pretty amazing things in the supernatural. So whether He created one light or another light or the land at one stage or another its still shows that His creative qualities are supernatural. They still show that He is able to make material things come into existence from the invisible world. This is still the same as what I was saying before.
Well if you would have been following what I have said I have been saying that what we see attributed to God is similar to what some scientists are saying when they are describing how the quantum world is. I have been saying that if scientists are putting forward these far fetched hypothesis like hologram and multi universe theories that why cant we also include the God hypothesis. Because all the evidence for both are indirect and we cant prove them directly because they are all based in another world or realm. I havnt been saying that the quantum world is God but it sure seems that way to me. Big difference.
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
- Nov 4, 2013
- 16,127
- 1,786
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
So let me get this straight. You say I'm cherry picking some verses out and then you say you will give me credit for using the majority of the bible for doing so. Well how is it cherry picking when I'm using the majority of the bible to find these verses like you say. The other point is we are talking about God as He relates to creation. So unless you can find some verses that say something different about Gods qualities as a Creator then I guess I am not cherry picking.
Oh steve...
Yes, you are cherry-picking, and now you're rationalising your cherry-picking. Your narrative thus far has been: "The findings of science align with what the Bible describes God as." To support this, you've cherry-picked select passages and matched them to certain scientific findings, insisting that there is some connection there, however tenuous. I say "tenuous" because, as Moriarty already explained, findings on the quantum level do not necessarily scale up in the way you assume that they do. You ignore, however, other passages (of which there are many) that clearly do not support the narrative you're trying to sell. But I guess you deserve credit for using "the majority" of the inerrant, inspired book!
As far as Moriarty is saying he cant really make this statement as he doesn't really know what the quantum world scales up to. Most scientists dont know but many are saying things that are along the lines of supernatural events. Thats scientists saying that not me or religion.
So when you want to establish that something may have a similar effect what do you do. Do you look for things that are not similar or look for things that are similar. Now you are saying I am cherry picking for finding verses that show Gods qualities as a creator. Look them up yourself. How else do you think the bible would describe a creator God. It seems now I cant even mention what the bible says about God as a creator.
You have got to be joking. You obviously have more faith in them and what they present than a person would to God. Investigations have even exposed scientists fudging data to the point of fraud and its been fairly rampant. You dont really apply the same vigor to the men in white coats do you. It is in many of their interests to have data going the way they want to present their certain hypothesis. Its tied to funding and reputations.
But if we take say a creature like [FONT=arial, helvetica][FONT=arial, helvetica]Archaeopteryx, opps thats your name. Oh well it was placed at the base of the dino to bird tree and held up as the champion transitional fossil for years. But recent discoveries found that it was actually one of the many dinos that happen to have feathers. In fact it wasn't even on the bird line. Some scientists had questioned its status for some time saying that several of its key features that linked it were not bird like but Dino like.[/FONT][/FONT] But many didn't want to acknowledge this and tried to hold onto the claims. This is one example. The skulls of Georgie are another and so is the transition for whale like Pakicetus. There are many that have been exaggerated and made out to be more than they are. Even with nicely place shapes on the bones with features added in to make them look more like the creatures they want to connect with without any verification that this was the case.
This has been repeated time and time again by scientists working in this field because what they are doing is looking back in time like a cold case and trying to picture what happened and what things were like. So its often left up to speculation and interpretation. This can be way off the mark and influenced by pre conceived beliefs. For example if a fossil is found near another and its hard to get the date then the date of the other fossil is used as the date. But when this happens to be out of line with how they have presented evolution then they dont use it. Its not until you start to peel off some of what they have presented that you start to see whats happening. But you like so many just believe because they are scientists and they say its true.
National Geographic is popularly regarded as an important scientific magazine that carries out research all over the planet and shares the results with its readers. The magazine is a major source of information in a great number of important areas, yet few readers are aware of the extent to which it passes this information through an ideological ‘filter’ before handing it on to its readers, and sometimes even twists the data according to the demands of this ideology and builds-up completely imaginary stories.
- A Whale Fantasy from National Geographic -
Scientists are accused of distorting theory of human evolution by misdating bones
Scientists are accused of distorting theory of human evolution by misdating bones | Science | The Observer
The Overselling of Ardipithecus ramidus
Given that these fossils come from the realm of science and not the world of celebrity gossip, why is the hype necessary in the first place? Discover Magazine is now saying "The bones of our ancestors do not speak across time with ultimate clarity." That's an understatement--but given how everyone previously fawned over Ardi's "missing link" status, could it be that there is more than mere science driving the promotion of these missing links?
The Overselling of <i>Ardipithecus ramidus</i>
Archaeopteryx "In other words, Archaeopteryx was no longer a bird," Lawrence Witmer, a professor at Ohio university's Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine, said in a commentary, also in Nature.
One reason it has been so hard for biologists to embrace this idea may have more to do with history than science.
Read more: Archaeopteryx, the ancestor of all birds, knocked from its perch | MNN - Mother Nature Network
* In other words they had known that Archaeopteryx was on shaky ground but didn't want to admit that so they kept the charade going for some time before the evidence was to great to deny it anymore.
There are stacks more. In fact there have found that peer reviewed work has been falsified and misrepresented as well. But apart from that if its just out there in the normal circles of publishing there is no checks and balances to verify what scientists have said so they can get away with all sorts of stuff.
We are talking about Gods creative qualities so yes we would need to see things about His creative abilities and qualities. By the way the example you have given regardless of you misinterpreting it still talks about God doing some pretty amazing things in the supernatural. So whether He created one light or another light or the land at one stage or another its still shows that His creative qualities are supernatural. They still show that He is able to make material things come into existence from the invisible world. This is still the same as what I was saying before.
Well if you would have been following what I have said I have been saying that what we see attributed to God is similar to what some scientists are saying when they are describing how the quantum world is. I have been saying that if scientists are putting forward these far fetched hypothesis like hologram and multi universe theories that why cant we also include the God hypothesis. Because all the evidence for both are indirect and we cant prove them directly because they are all based in another world or realm. I havnt been saying that the quantum world is God but it sure seems that way to me. Big difference.
Upvote
0
Archaeopteryx
Wanderer
steve, I was being sarcastic when I said "But I guess you deserve credit for using 'the majority' of the inerrant, inspired book!" Without a method of quantifying the proportion of passages dedicated to what you consider the "quantum qualities of God," I have no way of knowing whether you or not you are using "the majority" of the Bible as you claim to be. What I do know, however, is that you are not using all of it, which is strange given that this is a book regarded as inerrant by many of its adherents.
Did you even watch the video with Moriarty? What you just said is exactly what he is criticising - quantum woo.
If you want to discuss God as creator, then why not include all the Biblical passages that detail God as a creator? This would necessarily include Genesis, the vast majority of which (if not the totality) has been conspicuously absent from your analysis of the purported Biblical antecedents of modern cosmology.
steve, reputations can be permanently tarnished by fabricating data. Grant money, especially when it is tied to public institutions, is placed at risk when scientists behave in a manner considered unethical and contrary to the public interest. That's partly why the scientific community has developed systems to ensure that research is conducted ethically, from study design, to implementation, to reporting.
By the way, I'm not going to go through and read all your copied-and-pasted material. I don't see the need, particularly given that it only bears a tenuous connection to the topic under discussion here. If you want to structure a conversation around material copied-and-pasted from creationist websites, then I will respond in kind by copying-and-pasting relevant refutations. However, that is hardly a productive conversation, and it will surely take us off track.
But it's not the same as what we now know about the formation of the universe and our Earth. The Biblical account of these events is discordant with our scientific understanding of how they actually transpired. This isn't necessarily problematic from a purely theological perspective, but it is problematic if you want to claim that the Bible closely parallels the discoveries of science.
This brings us back to that question I keep asking, which you have yet to answer:
If the evidence that brings to bear eventually does support some naturalistic model of cosmogony, will you accept that model as probably true, or will you continue to insist that the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is true? I keep asking this because it seems to me that, despite demanding evidence for current cosmological models, whatever evidence is brought to bear is ultimately immaterial to whether or not you accept or reject those models. You will reject them out of hand anyway because they do not support creatio ex nihilo. Your demand for evidence therefore seems disingenuous, as no amount of evidence will ever sway you to accept a model inconsistent with doctrine. Or am I wrong about that?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
No. I'd need to see some data showing that this claim of yours is valid before bothering to discuss its implications.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
