• 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.

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,307
52,682
Guam
✟5,165,341.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Yes --- it was revealed that there was no mother ship behind the Hale-Bopp comet --- nor had there been.

It was reported as a hoax.

So can you prove that there wasn't a cloaked mothership behind the Hale-Bopp comet that we could not detect with our primative instruments?

Yes --- the cloaking device was invented by the Romulans --- in the 23[sup]rd[/sup] (?) century.
The Romulans are sci-fi. These people believed the mother-ship would really be there. Surely you don't imagine a civilization with the technology for interstellar travel would be unable to hide their ship from our equipment?

Again I ask... can you prove it wasn't there?
 
Upvote 0

FishFace

Senior Veteran
Jan 12, 2007
4,535
169
37
✟28,130.00
Faith
Atheist

And of course medical imaging with radioisotopes uses the premise that the material used has the correct half-life such that it will still be there when the image is taken, and that it won't be there many years afterwards. If nuclear science didn't work properly, we'd either be killing everyone with the radiation, or we'd be unable to get images out of them.
 
Upvote 0

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married

Yup.

I think the YEC like to think radiometric dating was "ginned up" completely independently of the century of work around radioactivity in general.

We know a lot about radioactive decay thanks to the hard non-miraculous work of countless dedicated scientists.

I wish YEC would also realize that the concept of "half-life" isn't just associated with radioactive decay. It can equally be applied to any process which follows this type of kinetic.


Granted, radioactive decay is NOT a chemical reaction, it is a nuclear reaction and the underlying processes are different, but indeed the rate of decay is what we are talking about here and we have extensively studied all of these various rates and modelled them.



The half life is the time it takes for half of the concentration of the reactant under observation to disappear. It summarizes down to:


k= the first order rate constant.


If YEC want to discuss the failings of radiometric dating, perhaps they can start with discussing first order rate kinetics in general.
 
Upvote 0

NailsII

Life-long student of biological science
Jul 25, 2007
1,690
48
UK
✟24,647.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Thank you for your prompt reply NavyGuy.
However, I believe you completely skated around the question. Unlike AV, who tried to dismiss it as out of context.
So I shall put it into context:

Leviticus 19 (New International Version)


So please, show me where it is out of context.
And then explain why you do not follow these laws as god dictated them.
And remember, the OT is was not overturned by Jesus, he was there to fulfill it. He said so himself.
 
Upvote 0

dukeofhazzard

Regular Member
Aug 15, 2007
498
57
✟23,418.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Hey Dukes, where did you go?

Guess we're not discussing "The Flood" anymore.

I was just visiting family . This thread has DOUBLED -- CRAZY!!


Personally, I'd like to address ship cloaking technology. Wouldn't any civilzation advanced enough to *have* interstellar travel also theorietically be advanced enough for cloaking tech?
 
Upvote 0

Inan3

Veteran Saint
Jul 22, 2007
3,376
88
West of the Mississippi
✟27,875.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So if God can "speak" to you in a way you understand, and you don't care about science, why doesn't he "speak" to scientists like me in a way I understand?
My inclusion of this site ="http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html" was not to challenge you or atheism but to merely answer your question (above) "why doesn't God speak to scientists", of which I answered "I think He does."



What your father was experiencing was not revelation. It was a confusion in his brain brought on by his stroke. A biblical revelation is defined in the Greek as:


1) laying bare, making naked

2) a disclosure of truth, instruction

a) concerning things before unknown

b) used of events by which things or states or persons hitherto withdrawn from view are made visible to all

3) manifestation, appearance

It is something not known or understood before coming to light.


On the contrary, Collins hit it right on the head. He wasn't talking about "feelings". You can have revelation without feelings and you can have feelings without revelation. Music produces emotional feelings in all of us but you can "know" the music without having the feelings and you can have the feelings without "knowing" the music.

He wasn''t really talking about music anyway. He was trying to make a contrast, that music is much more powerful and sweet when heard, as it is meant to be, than merely being written down on a sheet of paper. Even as, knowledge is much more powerful and sweet when reason is accompanied by further revelation rather than just being left to itself. It's more than saying I exist. It's saying I am alive! I live! I have purpose! I have being! I have value! I am!

And here I applaud Dr. Collins. I give him a standing ovation.

I give him a standing ovation for it all!.
 
Upvote 0

Inan3

Veteran Saint
Jul 22, 2007
3,376
88
West of the Mississippi
✟27,875.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

Gen 4:20 & 21
Gen 17:5
Gen 19:38
Gen 28:10 -13
Gen 32:9Gen 32:9 And Jacob said, O God of my father Abraham, and God of my father Isaac, the LORD which saidst unto me, Return unto thy country, and to thy kindred, and I will deal well with thee:

There are more but I am too tired to keep looking.
 
Upvote 0

Inan3

Veteran Saint
Jul 22, 2007
3,376
88
West of the Mississippi
✟27,875.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

Total misunderstanding of the meaning which I will have to explain at another time.
 
Upvote 0

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married

Fair enough. Good call.
 
Upvote 0

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
What your father was experiencing was not revelation. It was a confusion in his brain brought on by his stroke. A biblical revelation is defined in the Greek as:


What you are doing here is selectively defining something so you don't feel uncomfortable with the results.

Are you familiar with Christina Mirabilis? While I realize you are not a Catholic I hope you will see that honest Christians can easily take "delusion" as "holiness".

Just because you don't like the idea that some revelations are little more than delusions, or that you may not be able to tell which is which, doesn't make it valid to merely dismiss delusions as "non-revelatory".

Look at your defintion closely:


It "reveals" or brings to light a previously unknown or not understood thing. Indeed this is a very clear definition of the onset of a delusion.

Not that all revelations are by definition delusions, but this can easily define a delusion.

But further, how can you differentiate?
 
Upvote 0

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Total misunderstanding of the meaning which I will have to explain at another time.

Total? Do you really want to go that far? I think there's a reasonable argument for the OT Laws still being in effect. There's good reason to assume Jesus presumably meant what he said when he said:

[bible]Matthew 5:18[/bible]

Now granted, Jesus did claim to come to fulfill the law, but he also claimed he was going to return, and bring the kingdom of heaven in power. So when is complete fulfillment?

Clearly this was an issue that Paul and Peter duked it out over as well as the other various governing groups in the early Christian Church. This was clearly not settled by Jesus, otherwise there wouldn't have been Ebionites and Marcionites or a battle over applicability of the Laws.

Leviticus 23:14, when discussing Passover the phrase is used: "it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations", which of course would apply to the Jews, but if all was fulfilled and Jesus presumably knew this, then why did God allow this phrase in Leviticus? Why did he not say "it shall be a statute until such time as I come to atone you to myself.."? Or some such verbiage?

1 Chronicles 16:15 states the laws will be binding for a thousand generations, which should, by just about any calculcus, easily include 1st century Judea.

So while indeed the Old Testament laws may not be in effect, clearly it is not a total misunderstanding to assume that they are.

Indeed, I have heard protestant fundamentalist christians talk about how homosexuality is an abomination before God, but they don't seem to mind eating unclean animals and most don't necessarily feel that this is equally important:

[bible]Leviticus 11:12[/bible]

Certainly I don't see them picketting Red Lobster like some do Gay Pride parades.

So which is it? Are the laws all still in effect or just some? Which ones? Why are lobsters OK now but gay people not?
 
Upvote 0

Inan3

Veteran Saint
Jul 22, 2007
3,376
88
West of the Mississippi
✟27,875.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

Well maybe after the first thousand years it goes askew!

I don't really know about any of this and just because you have cited a few things does not mean that I know any more. I would have to know all the perameters involved. Then I could only make a guess but I do know that something is amuck in scienceland because there is no way that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, maybe 3.78 but certainly not 4.5.
 
Upvote 0

Skaloop

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion
May 10, 2006
16,332
899
49
Burnaby
Visit site
✟44,046.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-NDP

So you admit that you don't really know about any of this, but you feel confident in saying that there is no way that the Earth can be 4.5B years old? Yet you accept that it could be 3.78B years old? What's your reason for not accepting that extra 700 million years? On what basis do you conclude that 4.5B is completely ruled out?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.