Observed Speciation

[MSBS]

Lets see you find the word ball or sphere in Gods word.

Isa 22:18 He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a ball into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord's house.

 

[Data]

...Owned.

 

[ikester7579]

Isa 22:18 He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a ball into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord's house.

I stand corrected. Any where else?

One more thing. By which means did they have to see if the earth was round? O I know, they had space ships that were slung out into space by big rubber bands.

 

[Jet Black]

One more thing. By which means did they have to see if the earth was round? O I know, they had space ships that were slung out into space by big rubber bands.

elementary trig should do it. besides, even if they didn'T know, there was nothing stopping God telling them it was a big sphere.

 

[ikester7579]

And if they needed to be told, please tell us why this was so vital.

 

[MSBS]

I stand corrected. Any where else?

One more thing. By which means did they have to see if the earth was round? O I know, they had space ships that were slung out into space by big rubber bands.

You've totally missed the point. This particular thing with the flat vs spherical earth came from Karl's defense of lucaspa in regards to your statement about how he didn't quote from the bible when discussing evolution (think I got that right). If you're going to argue that those that wrote the bible didn't know about the earth being a sphere, so it doesn't have relevance in the argument of flat versus spherical earth, you have to use that same logic when discussing evolution. You don't get it both ways.

 

[Jet Black]

And if they needed to be told, please tell us why this was so vital.

cus if they were being told it was flat, they were being lied to, you see?

 

[ikester7579]

And if they were told nothing, then what?

 

[Jet Black]

then the bible would be several lines shorter.

 

[lucaspa]

Lucaspa, I'm glad you finally told me where you stand in your faith in God's word. You only believe about 50% of what's said. The rest science replaces for you. I now understand.

Where did you get this? Oh, I get it! You are still under the impression that you are god. Since science only falsifies a literal reading of Genesis 1-11, the sun standing still in Joshua, and the passages of a flat and immovable earth, that is far less than 50% of your literal god. Where did you get the 50% figure?

Science can't explain the rapture. Was wondering if you believe it will happen? Or does this fall on the other side of the 50% that's wrong?

Science doesn't explain a lot of things discussed in the Bible. But then, scinece is a limited form of knowing. What exactly do you mean by "the rapture"?

 

[lucaspa]

John 1:1, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and THE WORD WAS GOD.

ROFL! We've gone over this before, Ikester. The Word was God, but the Word was NOT the Bible! I thought you would at least believe the Bible on this, but instead you have gone beyond making a literal Bible your god. You have made yourself god.

John 1:14 "The Word became a human being and, full of grace and truth, lived among us. We saw his glory, the glory which he received as the Father's only Son."

There, Ikester, it can't get any plainer. "The Word" is not the Bible. It's Jesus!

Let me ask you: since you don't believe the Word was Jesus, how can you call yourself a Christian?

 

[lucaspa]

O, believe in what you see only? Has anyone seen God lately? But you still believe Lucaspa?

Ikester, did God create the universe?

 

[lucaspa]

I stand corrected. Any where else?

One more thing. By which means did they have to see if the earth was round? O I know, they had space ships that were slung out into space by big rubber bands.

MSBS answered this. You are trying to have it both ways. But in reality there were ways they could have known the earth was round:
1. God told them. After all, since the word "ball" is used in Isaiah, then in Isaiah 40:22, it could have said, "I sat on the ball of the earth" instead of "circle"!
2. The Hebrews lived next to the ocean and people did use ships. As ships disappear over the horizon, they disappear hull first and then the masts. If the earth were flat, they would disappear all at once. Only a curvature causes the hull to become unseen before the masts.
3. Erasthones in 600 BC had calculated the diameter and circumference of the spherical earth. Since much of the Bible wasn't written until 100 years later, they could have gotten his knowledge!

Now, if it wasn't important for God to tell the Hebrews that the earth was round or that it moved around the sun, but we know these things from extrabiblical knowledge, then it is equally valid that it wasn't important for God to tell the Hebrews the earth was 4.55 billion years old and God created by evolution, but we know these things from extrabiblical knowledge.

BTW, Ikester, the idea that there are two books of God has been a part of Christianity for at least 1600 years. It might help if you would learn a bit about the religion you supposedly believe in!

 

[Mistermystery]

It's not that I would even attempt to approach it. I do not have the vast libary to look up all that is listed. And no I won't go read all these books just to confront this issue on this thread. Nor do I feel the need to. If Lucaspa believes all these books, that's his right. My question was on his approach and his faith.

His faith and or how he approaches some issue have very little to do with the issue itself, rather more with the person behind the statement.

 

[Mistermystery]

elementary trig should do it. besides, even if they didn'T know, there was nothing stopping God telling them it was a big sphere.

People from egypt and greece knew that the earthw as round through trig. Also: if they'd look at the sky, and see for instance the moon, they'd see that it was round as well, Not flat.

 

[lucaspa]

It's not that I would even attempt to approach it. I do not have the vast libary to look up all that is listed. And no I won't go read all these books just to confront this issue on this thread. Nor do I feel the need to.

The issue on this thread is whether speciation -- macroevolution -- has been observed. The references in the OP are those observations. So, if you are going to deny speciation has ever been observed, you certainly do need to confront that issue.

If Lucaspa believes all these books, that's his right. My question was on his approach and his faith.

It's not a question of "believe". I accept the data in those reports because the pictures and measurements give me no choice. Just like I have no choice but to accept the data that objects fall when released. Just like you have no choice but to accept the data that the earth is round.

The issue, Ikester, is why you are willing to accept the data on a round earth but reject the data on speciation? Why would speciation threaten your faith anymore than round earth does?

 

[Jet Black]

Science doesn't explain a lot of things discussed in the Bible. But then, scinece is a limited form of knowing. What exactly do you mean by "the rapture"?

I think the rapture is when Jesus comes back to earth and snaps all the christians away, regardless of what they are doing, flying planes, driving buses, operating on people, delivering milk... and the rest of us get left behind. apparently it will be soon. or not, depending on who you ask.

 

[lucaspa]

I think the rapture is when Jesus comes back to earth and snaps all the christians away, regardless of what they are doing, flying planes, driving buses, operating on people, delivering milk... and the rest of us get left behind. apparently it will be soon. or not, depending on who you ask.

Jet, I know the general definition. What I need to know is Ikester's definition. As we have seen, Ikester has unique definitions for theological terms. The worst is his use of John 1:1 to say that "the Word" is the Bible. So, what Ikester thinks the rapture is probably very different from what Christianity thinks it is.

 

[Jet Black]

Jet, I know the general definition. What I need to know is Ikester's definition. As we have seen, Ikester has unique definitions for theological terms. The worst is his use of John 1:1 to say that "the Word" is the Bible. So, what Ikester thinks the rapture is probably very different from what Christianity thinks it is.

aah ok I think the definition of that is pretty solid though, though sometimes it might include a bit of "hahahahaha die sinners, die!!!!!" and other craziness. The thing I always wonder though is, will there be special effects?

 

[Herman Hedning]

For those who don't know what will happen at the rapture, I can recommend a fantastic book Job: A Comedy of Justice by that master of short stories Robert A. Henlein. Here you will even get to know what happens to the righteous after they arrive in heaven. Hint: it ain't that great.