• 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.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Jester4kicks

Warning - The following may cause you to think
Nov 13, 2007
1,555
127
43
✟24,959.00
Faith
Taoist
Marital Status
Single

Your tall-tale does not "mesh" with scientific possibility, nor does it have ANY bearing in common-sense or logic.

Oh... and the definitions of "critic" and "skeptic" are completely different... always have been. "Critic" comes from the latin word "criticus", meaning "to judge".

The root of the word "skeptic" comes from the name of the students who studied philosophy under Pyrrho. To put it best:
"Skeptic does not mean him who doubts, but him who investigates or researches as opposed to him who asserts and thinks that he has found." [Miguel de Unamuno, "Essays and Soliloquies," 1924]​

Let us be the ones who clarify all for everyone:
Serious questions? 1)Do you believe in the Big Bang Theory with it's fabled Particle with infinite density; from which, therefore, sprang all that is our Universe, including life forms which have the ability of intelligent thought?


Yup... although the particle wasn't a particle, it wasn't fabled, and intelligent life (on Earth) did not spring from it (unless you're willing to accept the vicarious association). I'd explain why these terms are important... but you and actual definitions seem to have problems... so I'll just suggest getting a dictionary and figuring it out.

2)Do you believe in the Biblical Genesis Account of the Creation, which is little more than a vague and simplystic Children's story?


Nope.



I think the Big Bang Theory is on the right track, and scientists will continue to develop it and see if it continues to hold true or if it needs to be reworked. I'm not sure why you think the "fabled particle" somehow negates the Big Bang Theory.

4)Do you believe in a God, or Gods/Creator or Creators, and that only they could have created you and I, who have the ability of intelligent thought? Or, is that ability the product of a huge explosion of fiery Matter some 13-billion years ago?


You seemed to have made the distinction that a person either must believe in god, or must believe in the Big Bang Theory... as if one could not believe in both... why?

5)Could fiery Matter evolve into life forms capable of intelligent thought?

I doubt it... but since I am unable to verify the organic nature of all "fiery matter" in the universe... I cannot say for sure. However, I hope you realize that the Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with life coming from non-life... and that current theories within the field of Abiogenesis have nothing to do with life coming from "fiery matter".

6)Do you believe a meshing of a revised Big Bang Theory with the formation of life forms by the hand of a God, or Gods, is possibly the final solultion to the Creation mystery?


Nope. I believe the final solution will be a scientific one... and since there is no actual evidence for the existence of god, scientists will never be able to rely on that notion when forming a theory.

7)Do you believe you have a Soul, which will survive the death of your body?


Hmmm... interesting question... although without getting into a long discussion regarding the nature of the "soul", any answer I can give is meaningless... but I'll say "Yes".

8)Do you believe Theistic Evolution can only be the Truth, or must the Truth be only the Big Bang Theory, or the Genesis Account?


The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang Theory... furthermore, scientists do not settle for ideas because they "can or must be the only truth", they are constantly looking for new or different answers. Answers which confirm their existing theories, or prove them wrong and lead to further development.




(If your answer to question #7 is in the affirmative, then I know what your answers are to the other questions, Jester- even if you don't).

As I stated in that answer, no response would really tell you anything without a thorough discussion of the nature of the "soul"... but I'm glad you think an answer to an ambigious question would somehow give you insight into my opinions on the other matters.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married

7)Do you believe you have a Soul, which will survive the death of your body?


It seems that you could elaborate more on this one. Would you?

What is your experience which made you believe that you have a soul? Soul?
 
Upvote 0

Senachwine

Newbie
May 10, 2008
42
0
✟22,652.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Jester- I finally figured it out, thanks to actual life experiences over 53 years: you are a Doctor, and an Astrological Theorist, and Bioligist and Theologian extraordinare. Yes, only you are worthy of congratulations

You truly do make this forum a waste of time. By your many responses in many threads- unhappiness does not like company. You are hot air.

(The cogratulations are for convincing me to never even visit this forum again)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Jester4kicks

Warning - The following may cause you to think
Nov 13, 2007
1,555
127
43
✟24,959.00
Faith
Taoist
Marital Status
Single
I'm almost starting to look forward to these...



O...k... so science is bad because it doesn't rely on fairytales, pixie dust, and unicorns?

As for the idea that the Big Bang and Evolution are the only two things that science has to offer... you seem to have a VERY limited understanding. If the Big Bang Theory is step 1... the Theory of Evolution would be closer to step 7 or 8 when looking at the chronology of scientific fields leading toward the development of homo sapiens.

And WHAT I BORE WITNESS TO


Small point: you didn't "bear witness" to anything... but please, carry on...


Jester, meshes perfectly with what is known and acknowledged by Science.


Umm... no... but thanks for trying. The Big Bang Theory says nothing about "fiery matter" being "cast out" into space and then somehow forming everything into existence.

All I offer is the replacement of a singular Big Bang with a particle of infinite density- WHICH IF REALLY WOULD LIKE YOU TO DEFINITIVELY -EXPLAIN TO ME ALL THE WAY TO THE QUARK LEVEL-

Simple.

From Dictionary.com:
par·ti·cle
–noun 1.a minute portion, piece, fragment, or amount; a tiny or very small bit: a particle of dust; not a particle of supporting evidence. 2.Physics. a.one of the extremely small constituents of matter, as an atom or nucleus. b.an elementary particle, quark, or gluon. c.a body in which the internal motion is negligible.

However, if you would like to find me a single reliable source that says the Big Bang originated from a single particle... I will be more than happy to retract my statement.


with a prolonged Bang-type event which may have lasted hours, as we measure time.


Actually, since time is relative, and since it is dependant on space... the scale of time at the moment of the Big Bang would have seemed to be the same as if it happened today.

Isn't science fun?!

For more information about the Big Bang Theory and the timeline associated with it, check here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang_timeline

With what is now known, how can anyone regard the Genesis Account as anything more than a children's story? Really.


I'm sorry... but this is coming from the guy that hit his head and now thinks he was witness to the moment of creation? Sorry... but you're gonna have to give me a moment to appreciate the irony here...









...ok, moment is over.



I see... so this amazing insight that you were going to get from my answer to an ambiguous question... this insight cannot be discussed because you don't see a reason to explain yourself or describe your reasoning...

ok... that makes sense.




Wow... you gettin a little worked-up there sparky?

Let me get this straight... you like the Theory of Evolution, and you're only problem is that you haven't seen what science has to say about how life started?

Well, it's your lucky day. May I introduce you to the field of Abiogenesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis


Jester, all I'm saying is that the Evolutionists are mostly right, and the Creationists are partly right; but, that neither is correct, as they theorize.


Quick point: Scientists theorize, creationists postulate.




That's ok... lots of other people like to make up their own realities too.

Oh, Jester, and by the way, my writings, compliments of Notebood Folders, is well on it's way.

I'm sorry... could you repeat all that? The Twilight Zone theme started drowning you out about 7 words in...
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.