Tribulation physics

[Jamin4422]

You seem to be using your own dictionary right now -- not Man's, and certainly not God's.

I go by the Bible and constantly provide scripture to back up what I am saying.

 

[Gracchus]

I go by the Bible and constantly provide scripture to back up what I am saying.

You might just as well go by the Brothers Grimm, or Mother Goose.

 

[Tiberius]

What I am saying is your asking me grade school questions. It is right because the Bible says it.

So you start from the assumption that the Bible is always going to be correct.

On what grounds do you make this assumption?

Do you want to get into a discussion of the Origin and Authority of the Biblical Canon? How they determined what Books are in the Bible and what books are not qualified to be in the Bible. Take Solomon for example. He wrote 1000 books. But only three of those books were considered for the Bible Cannon. Song of songs we are told was the most controversial.

Yes, how did they determine which books went in or not?

Also if you want to reject the Bible Cannon, then use Science to verify the Bible. Even if you want to reject what Science can not verify, there is lots and lots that Science can verify. So you are rejecting science and the testimony Science gives you about how accurate and true the Bible is.

Oh yes, science can verify a great deal of what is in the Bible.

On the other hand, it can verify a great deal of what was in M*A*S*H as well. And Star Trek, Frasier, and pretty much any other fiction you want.

However, I have a serious problem when science is completely unable to verify any of the miraculous events - Jesus rising from the dead, or Jesus walking on water, the flood, etc. There is no way science can test these, and I don't think that anything should be believed unless it can be subjected to rigorous testing AND it withstands that testing.

For example, I accept that evolution is a fact because it withstands testing. But I don't have to take the word of the scientists. I can look at the data they got and see for myself. I can perform my own tests. But how does one verify that Jesus could walk on water?

 

[dad]

I have a serious problem when science is completely unable to verify any of the miraculous events -..

Me too. What sort of insignificant little dweeb is science when it cannot conform or deny the fundamental facts of history and the scripture? Talk about worthless. Useless.

Hey kids, it it time we reject so called science for the little fraud it is.

 

[mzungu]

Me too. What sort of insignificant little dweeb is science when it cannot conform or deny the fundamental facts of history and the scripture? Talk about worthless. Useless.

Hey kids, it it time we reject so called science for the little fraud it is.

So sayeth the man who makes a mockery of the very Bible he worships!

 

[The Engineer]

Exactly..not all things are supportable in the way some would want.

The bible, for example.

Says who? Whenever the spiritual is applied to the norm, we get more than normal. No evidence other than maybe some observers would exist. But, by the same token, you have no evidence they are wrong or that your norm was not messed with.

Yeah, my norm could have been messed with, sure, but I doubt anybody brainwashed me into thinking humans need to breath.
You don't have to prove anybody wrong who has no evidence for his claims.

Not when the norm for eternity is not our present state norm. In that case, whenever you try to apply the 'norm' of your temporary state to the real norm beyond that, your norm doesn't apply.

Yet another unsubstantiated claim.

First they need to be elevated above fables for anyone to have a need to refute them.

The things you have mentioned have been proven for a long time. Your argument is invalid.

No. True that things like medical advances on earth and other inventions involve real science. False that any present state in the past was used in the advances or breakthroughs regardless of what anyone believes or assumes.

There are no real scientists, as you call them. Every scientist assumes the rules of nature will not change for no good reason.

No. Man only knows so much. The issue here is how long do you KNOW that our state has existed, and exactly how?

It's not me that talks about our state, but you. The one who must answer this question is you.

I always assume the rules of nature will stay the same, because predictions would be impossible without this assumption.

It is anything but reasonable to base a whole lot of what you do not know, like the laws of the far future. The predictions are totally dependent on this state existing.

That's why they assume that this state will continue to exist. However, whereas they assume it will exist for all eternity (which is the more reasonable assumption if we have no evidence that the state will change), you assume that it will end.

Let's be clear. If we are talking about our present state as the present, then how long it will last into the future is the question. The answer is that you do not know. Not rocket science that.

This is not an answer to my question. You talked about multiple futures, I wanted to know what you mean by that.

To answer your comment, I do not know our present state (i.e. the state during which the rules of nature apply in their current forms) will never change, but I assume it doesn't, because otherwise, I could not make any predictions, at all.

States? Now we are to expect the eternal state to change?? Why? Evidence?

I never said that!

True and unknown at this point in time. However the sequence once started like a fuse to a timebomb, will take a known amount of time to burn.

Good.

I guess if you mean predictions of science, yes, they cannot apply to the far future.

That's because you assume that our rules will no longer apply in the future. Scientists don't. The whole problem is that you take the bible serious; they don't.

No change on my part. You just got more info about my position.

If your opinion really didn't change, I suggest you try to make yourself more clear. Our whole debate was completely off in the beginning, because you rambled on and on about how scientists can't assume the rules of nature will stay the same. Now, we both agree that they can very well assume the rules of nature won't change for no good reason. You believe in this good reason; they don't.

Predictions are all well and good as long as our state exists.

We can assume our state will exist forever.

I named a few things in the sequence of events we talked about that leads to the nature change. Quite relevant.

Those things will never happen.

So you admit not having a clue. OK. That's a good start.

I don't. You're deliberately misunderstanding me. I agreed with everything except the part that scientists have no clue. If you listened to anything I said during the entire debate, you would've known that I wouldn't agree with this part.

Not a bad little capsule view of the situation. In essence then it means no prediction of science regarding the future is of any value whatsoever by anyone's view, unless their belief system is true! Thanks for that.

A lot of people share the view of scientists regarding those matters. The only ones who don't are the ones who take the bible way to serious.

Some of us have our own belief systems though, thanks.

You're telling me that a belief system which is completely ripped from a single book is unique? Good one!

Fine, but that still leaves them with no way of knowing, and therefore not to be taken seriously themselves.

You have no way of knowing. The bible is not the truth; it's just a book.

Having other parts of God's word in mind when speaking God's word is not a bad thing. It is clear that there are many many many references to former prophets all the way through the bible. The cohesiveness and agreement are a trademark of His word.

That's not what I meant. What I meant was that this part was added in by the authors solely so that they could claim that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy.

How would you know? Can you test spirits and inspiration?

Nope, but I can assume God doesn't exist, because there is no evidence for him.

False. The consistency that is involved is not all that is assumed. The actual laws and forces and rules that make anything work have to do with the present state, regardless of what anyone thinks or feels or believes.

Again, everyone who doesn't take the bible as serious as you do will assume that this state will never change.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Me too. What sort of insignificant little dweeb is science when it cannot conform or deny the fundamental facts of history and the scripture? Talk about worthless. Useless.

Hey kids, it it time we reject so called science for the little fraud it is.

And replace it with the bigger fraud of dadology?

 

[dad]

So sayeth the man who makes a mockery of the very Bible he worships!

And how would that be?

 

[dad]

Yeah, my norm could have been messed with, sure, but I doubt anybody brainwashed me into thinking humans need to breath.
You don't have to prove anybody wrong who has no evidence for his claims.

Or that Daniel was captive.

Yet another unsubstantiated claim.

It was a logical deduction. Unless our state extended to all time and space, then certain things must follow.

The things you have mentioned have been proven for a long time. Your argument is invalid.

Then you are misinformed indeed. The big bang, hit and run moon creation, and the first life form are anything but proven. Insane claim.

There are no real scientists, as you call them. Every scientist assumes the rules of nature will not change for no good reason.

Well then, whoever they are, as long as they deal in the present state, they have a good chance of success. Those that prophesy of their same state future and past are filthy dreamers.

It's not me that talks about our state, but you. The one who must answer this question is you.

The answer is that you do not know. Apparently most evos prefer to stay ignorant than to let God inform them also. So there we stand.

I always assume the rules of nature will stay the same, because predictions would be impossible without this assumption.

Right,, and your beliefs are fine. Just do not confuse them with knowledge or science.

That's why they assume that this state will continue to exist. However, whereas they assume it will exist for all eternity (which is the more reasonable assumption if we have no evidence that the state will change), you assume that it will end.

I read what the One that made it says actually. Man doesn't know. How could he? The only issue is whether little man is honest enough to admit the obvious.

This is not an answer to my question. You talked about multiple futures, I wanted to know what you mean by that.

I did? What was the context?

To answer your comment, I do not know our present state (i.e. the state during which the rules of nature apply in their current forms) will never change, but I assume it doesn't, because otherwise, I could not make any predictions, at all.

Bingo. All your predictions are then admittedly based on what you do not know after all. What more can I say? Come on over to the knowin side!

That's because you assume that our rules will no longer apply in the future. Scientists don't. The whole problem is that you take the bible serious; they don't.

You could be onto something.

If your opinion really didn't change, I suggest you try to make yourself more clear. Our whole debate was completely off in the beginning, because you rambled on and on about how scientists can't assume the rules of nature will stay the same.

The can't, as far as making long term models..past or future, that oppose God's word to man.

Now, we both agree that they can very well assume the rules of nature won't change for no good reason. You believe in this good reason; they don't.

Doesn't matter what they believe. They know not. So it is not from any position of knowledge or real science that they oppose God. Good thing for kids to know. Listen up kids. They don't know what they are talking about.

We can assume our state will exist forever.

Insane and uninformed belief.

Those things will never happen.

Now you take to prophesying. God's prophets were stoned to death if they got a prophesy wrong. Those that survived and made it into the book had credos. You have none.

I don't. You're deliberately misunderstanding me. I agreed with everything except the part that scientists have no clue. If you listened to anything I said during the entire debate, you would've known that I wouldn't agree with this part.

So now they have a clue? About ..what?

A lot of people share the view of scientists regarding those matters. The only ones who don't are the ones who take the bible way to serious.

Opinions are a dime a dozen. So called science has come off as knowing stuff. A fraud.

You're telling me that a belief system which is completely ripped from a single book is unique? Good one!

Don't worry about beliefs.

You have no way of knowing. The bible is not the truth; it's just a book.

Don't worry about what God knows. All that matters here is that you know not.

That's not what I meant. What I meant was that this part was added in by the authors solely so that they could claim that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy.

Baseless conspiracy theory. Whoopee doo.

Nope, but I can assume God doesn't exist, because there is no evidence for him.

Keep lookin. I found some.

Again, everyone who doesn't take the bible as serious as you do will assume that this state will never change.

So? It won't be science or known, just baseless belief. Once science is busted as that then the jig is up.

 

[dkbwarrior]

Oh yes, science can verify a great deal of what is in the Bible.

On the other hand, it can verify a great deal of what was in M*A*S*H as well. And Star Trek, Frasier, and pretty much any other fiction you want.

However, I have a serious problem when science is completely unable to verify any of the miraculous events - Jesus rising from the dead, or Jesus walking on water, the flood, etc. There is no way science can test these, and I don't think that anything should be believed unless it can be subjected to rigorous testing AND it withstands that testing.

Why do you have a problem? Science has limitations. It may not be able to prove or disprove an event described in history, but that doesn't mean the event did or didn't happen. The fact is, that science hasn't DISPROVED any historical event in the Bible. With a book with as many pages and stroies as the Bible has, one would think that if it were all fairy tales, one could disprove SOMETHING.

For example, I accept that evolution is a fact because it withstands testing. But I don't have to take the word of the scientists. I can look at the data they got and see for myself. I can perform my own tests. But how does one verify that Jesus could walk on water?

I usually don't post in this forum, but this statement jumped out at me as laughable. What you are describing is precisely the reason that I do not believe in evolution. While it is a nice theory, it is supported only by ancillary evidence, archeaological observation, and genetic assumptions. It has yet to be reproduced in a controlled environment, nor observed in real time, which is how we test scientific theories. It is certainly the most unproved scientific theory, with the most ancillary evidence, in existence. Many attempts to test the theory have been made. However, every attempt at reproducing it or observing it in real time has failed, (which is precisely why you don't hear about them). You would think that this would dissuade evolutionists, but it does not. They spend 100's of millions, even billions of dollars gathering more ancillary evidence, archeaological observation, and genetic assumptions, precisely because they cannot reproduce it or observe it in real time. They seem to have concluded that if they cannot provide proof, they will instead bury us in assumptions based on past facts. Thier zeal to convice us that their theory is true borders on the fanaticism of the most religious zealots. But no matter how high the mountain of assumption gets, it does not fully obfuscate the fact that they still have not proven their theory.

The funny thing is, that while science may not be able to prove or disprove certain historical facts, becasue of an inability to test them, it can certainly prove or disprove the theory of evolution, as it is supposed to be happening now. Going by what you said above:

...I don't think that anything should be believed unless it can be subjected to rigorous testing AND it withstands that testing.

I would say that one should certainly not believe in evolution.

Peace...

 

[mzungu]

Why do you have a problem? Science has limitations. It may not be able to prove or disprove an event described in history, but that doesn't mean the event did or didn't happen. The fact is, that science hasn't DISPROVED any historical event in the Bible. With a book with as many pages and stroies as the Bible has, one would think that if it were all fairy tales, one could disprove SOMETHING.



I usually don't post in this forum, but this statement jumped out at me as laughable. What you are describing is precisely the reason that I do not believe in evolution. While it is a nice theory, it is supported only by ancillary evidence, archeaological observation, and genetic assumptions. It has yet to be reproduced in a controlled environment, nor observed in real time, which is how we test scientific theories. It is certainly the most unproved scientific theory, with the most ancillary evidence, in existence. Many attempts to test the theory have been made. However, every attempt at reproducing it or observing it in real time has failed, (which is precisely why you don't hear about them). You would think that this would dissuade evolutionists, but it does not. They spend 100's of millions, even billions of dollars gathering more ancillary evidence, archeaological observation, and genetic assumptions, precisely because they cannot reproduce it or observe it in real time. They seem to have concluded that if they cannot provide proof, they will instead bury us in assumptions based on past facts. Thier zeal to convice us that their theory is true borders on the fanaticism of the most religious zealots. But no matter how high the mountain of assumption gets, it does not fully obfuscate the fact that they still have not proven their theory.

The funny thing is, that while science may not be able to prove or disprove certain historical facts, becasue of an inability to test them, it can certainly prove or disprove the theory of evolution, as it is supposed to be happening now. Going by what you said above:



I would say that one should certainly not believe in evolution.

Peace...

What is there to disprove; Talking snakes, flat Earth, Stationary Earth, Geocentrism, Whales being fish, bats being fowl, raising dead people, flowers before light, etc.

So when did snakes stop speaking English

 

[Greg1234]

Oh yes, science can verify a great deal of what is in the Bible.

On the other hand, it can verify a great deal of what was in M*A*S*H as well. And Star Trek, Frasier, and pretty much any other fiction you want.

The eye and thermometer can in fact verify the things in Mash. However, the spirit is the immaterial and commands according to same. So different categories.

 

[dkbwarrior]

What is there to disprove; Talking snakes, flat Earth, Stationary Earth, Geocentrism, Whales being fish, bats being fowl, raising dead people, flowers before light, etc.

So when did snakes stop speaking English

And how better to prove my point than a post like this? You make this too easy.

Peace...

 

[Tiberius]

Why do you have a problem? Science has limitations. It may not be able to prove or disprove an event described in history, but that doesn't mean the event did or didn't happen. The fact is, that science hasn't DISPROVED any historical event in the Bible. With a book with as many pages and stroies as the Bible has, one would think that if it were all fairy tales, one could disprove SOMETHING.

Well, it's a matter of how extraordinary it is.

If the Bible says that Mary cooked dinner for Joseph and jesus and Joe accidentally knocked his plate to the floor and Jesus thought it was funny how he banged his head on the table while he picked it up, then I'd happily accept it as something that is quite likely. because, face it, those things happen all the time.

But when the Bible starts making extraordinary claims about how Jesus could heal the sick and dying just by touching them, well, that's not likely, is it? That sort of thing just isn't a common event.

And so we judge things based on a simple rule: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You wouldn't need much evidence to convince you that I had a sandwich yesterday. But you;d need significantly more evidence to convince you of the time I was riding my bike, the inner tube burst, pushing the tire off the rim, and then snapped back on the burst inner tube, sealing the hole shut so I was able to keep riding home (that did actually happen, by the way, no fooling).

So, when the Bible makes all these miraculous claims, it does not provide the required evidence to support them. The claim Jesus could walk on water is made no where else except in the Bible. Now, if we had some old piece of parchment apart from the Bible that said, "Yesterday I saw a guy, and he could walk on water. His name was Jesus," then it would be a start. But when so many of these miraculous events were witnessed by so many, and yet we have not a single shred of documentation, I find it hard to accept it.

So, yes, there are a great many things in the Bible that science hasn't disproved (and a great many things it has). But I'm not going to accept that they must have been true simply because I can't prove that they were. Until I see convincing evidence that they occurred, I will assume that they didn't happen. I will, of course, remain open to the possibility that they DID happen, but the default position would seem to be that the more extraordinary the claim is, the less likely it is to be true.

I usually don't post in this forum, but this statement jumped out at me as laughable. What you are describing is precisely the reason that I do not believe in evolution. While it is a nice theory, it is supported only by ancillary evidence, archeaological observation, and genetic assumptions.

I fear you have been learning about evolution from creationists. Please have a read of "The Ancestor's Tale" by Richard Dawkins. It contains a wealth of evidence for evolution and describes in detail how that evidence works. it also lists many instances where evolution has been observed, both in the lab and in the wild.

It has yet to be reproduced in a controlled environment,nor observed in real time, which is how we test scientific theories.

Yes it has. There has been Richard Lenski's famous experiment with 50,000 generations of E.coli bacteria. Another experiment has also shown the development of multi-cellularity in bacteria within 60 days, a feat which took several billion years in the real world.

It is certainly the most unproved scientific theory, with the most ancillary evidence, in existence.

It's actually considered to be one of the best supported theories, what with the wealth of fossil evidence and DNA evidence, as well as many other forms of supporting evidence.

Once again, if you read some of Richard Dawkins books you'll see for yourself.

Many attempts to test the theory have been made. However, every attempt at reproducing it or observing it in real time has failed, (which is precisely why you don't hear about them). You would think that this would dissuade evolutionists, but it does not. They spend 100's of millions, even billions of dollars gathering more ancillary evidence, archeaological observation, and genetic assumptions, precisely because they cannot reproduce it or observe it in real time. They seem to have concluded that if they cannot provide proof, they will instead bury us in assumptions based on past facts. Thier zeal to convice us that their theory is true borders on the fanaticism of the most religious zealots. But no matter how high the mountain of assumption gets, it does not fully obfuscate the fact that they still have not proven their theory.

More creationist propaganda, I'm afraid. Evolution has been observed many times. I've cited two examples above, and it has also been observed in the cichlid fish in Lake Victoria in Africa as well as finch species adapted to harsh climates with different beak sizes.

The simple fact is that if you are told that evolution has not been observed, you are being lied to.

The funny thing is, that while science may not be able to prove or disprove certain historical facts, becasue of an inability to test them, it can certainly prove or disprove the theory of evolution, as it is supposed to be happening now. Going by what you said above:

...I don't think that anything should be believed unless it can be subjected to rigorous testing AND it withstands that testing.

I would say that one should certainly not believe in evolution.

Peace...

And since evolution has withstood that rigorous testing, I do accept it as true.

I've mentioned four cases you can go and check for yourself. If you want more information, have a read of "The Ancestor's Tale". Some parts are a bit tough to get through, such as the unrooted trees in the Gibbon's tale, but the parts I described are very easy to understand.

 

[Tiberius]

The eye and thermometer can in fact verify the things in Mash. However, the spirit is the immaterial and commands according to same. So different categories.

I can say that about much of what I see in Star Trek.

How can you say they can't travel faster than light? Obviously they have technology we can't comprehend, so you can't say it is wrong! Therefore it must be right!

You see, Star Trek shows me many things I can check for myself. The Golden Gate Bridge. The moon. The ISS. It is by these things that I know it speaks to truth. So when it tells me about Vulcans and Warp Drive and transporters, I know that it is also the truth.

 

[mzungu]

And how better to prove my point than a post like this? You make this too easy.

Peace...

You claim that science has not disproved the bible? You may as well make the claim: " Science has yet to disprove a single figure in MARVEL COMICS".

Science does not indulge in the SUPERNATURAL and the UNFALSIFIABLE and the SPIRITUAL. If it did it would be chasing polka dotted pink unicorns instead of dealing with the PHYSICAL world.

The Bible belongs to the spiritual world and science to the physical. Now please show me where the Bible has disproved science? It has not? Well then thank you for making my point!

May FSM bless you with a thousand plates of pasta!

 

[Greg1234]

I can say that about much of what I see in Star Trek.

How can you say they can't travel faster than light? Obviously they have technology we can't comprehend, so you can't say it is wrong! Therefore it must be right!

You see, Star Trek shows me many things I can check for myself. The Golden Gate Bridge. The moon. The ISS. It is by these things that I know it speaks to truth. So when it tells me about Vulcans and Warp Drive and transporters, I know that it is also the truth.

"Vulcans" and "Warp Drives" would be physical objects. Whether or not they are real has no bearing on the existence of the physical or the non-physical which impels.

 

[dkbwarrior]

Well, it's a matter of how extraordinary it is.

If the Bible says that Mary cooked dinner for Joseph and jesus and Joe accidentally knocked his plate to the floor and Jesus thought it was funny how he banged his head on the table while he picked it up, then I'd happily accept it as something that is quite likely. because, face it, those things happen all the time.

But when the Bible starts making extraordinary claims about how Jesus could heal the sick and dying just by touching them, well, that's not likely, is it? That sort of thing just isn't a common event.

And so we judge things based on a simple rule: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You wouldn't need much evidence to convince you that I had a sandwich yesterday. But you;d need significantly more evidence to convince you of the time I was riding my bike, the inner tube burst, pushing the tire off the rim, and then snapped back on the burst inner tube, sealing the hole shut so I was able to keep riding home (that did actually happen, by the way, no fooling).

So, when the Bible makes all these miraculous claims, it does not provide the required evidence to support them. The claim Jesus could walk on water is made no where else except in the Bible. Now, if we had some old piece of parchment apart from the Bible that said, "Yesterday I saw a guy, and he could walk on water. His name was Jesus," then it would be a start. But when so many of these miraculous events were witnessed by so many, and yet we have not a single shred of documentation, I find it hard to accept it.

So, yes, there are a great many things in the Bible that science hasn't disproved (and a great many things it has). But I'm not going to accept that they must have been true simply because I can't prove that they were. Until I see convincing evidence that they occurred, I will assume that they didn't happen. I will, of course, remain open to the possibility that they DID happen, but the default position would seem to be that the more extraordinary the claim is, the less likely it is to be true.

I agree with much of what you said above, aside from the statement: So, yes, there are a great many things in the Bible that science hasn't disproved (and a great many things it has). Please, if you care to, share what things in the Bible have been dispproved?

Simply saying that something is impossible is not proof that it is. Just think of all the things that we take for granted today, that humans 100 years ago would have thought are impossible. Impossibility is in the eye of the beholder, and is completely subjective.

Further, I don't claim to be able to prove the Bible is correct. It is good enough for me that you cannot prove the Bible incorrect. That is because I completely accept that the Bible is a book of faith. That is what I am, a believer. This is something that I am quite comfortable with. It doesn't bother me at all to believe. That is who I am, and what I do. And I am honest about it. I don't lie to myself about it, like the athiest often does, and so desperately tries to hide. I have no interest in trying to prove the Bible to you, or anyone else. If I could, then it wouldn't require faith, and then one couldn't receive anything from God anyway. Faith is the only avenue by which we can reach God, it is the way God created us to operate.

I fear you have been learning about evolution from creationists. Please have a read of "The Ancestor's Tale" by Richard Dawkins. It contains a wealth of evidence for evolution and describes in detail how that evidence works. it also lists many instances where evolution has been observed, both in the lab and in the wild.

Yes it has. There has been Richard Lenski's famous experiment with 50,000 generations of E.coli bacteria. Another experiment has also shown the development of multi-cellularity in bacteria within 60 days, a feat which took several billion years in the real world.

It's actually considered to be one of the best supported theories, what with the wealth of fossil evidence and DNA evidence, as well as many other forms of supporting evidence.

Once again, if you read some of Richard Dawkins books you'll see for yourself.

More creationist propaganda, I'm afraid. Evolution has been observed many times. I've cited two examples above, and it has also been observed in the cichlid fish in Lake Victoria in Africa as well as finch species adapted to harsh climates with different beak sizes.

The simple fact is that if you are told that evolution has not been observed, you are being lied to.

I am about as likely to read Richard Dawkings works as you are to read Matthew Henrys Expanded Commentary on the Bible. By the way, for your information, I dislike alot of the popular creationist material also. I am not a Young Earth Creationist. I am a Gap theory creationist, and believe that the earth and universe are likely as old as science says that they are.

Look, I have read about and researched these before. This is not my first time around the mulberry bush. Changes within kinds occur all the time. Selective breeding is the most obvious example. I suppose that we could call this micro-evolution, for the sake of argument; but the fact is, when we are discussing evolution in this context we all know what we are talking about. We are talking about the addition of genetic information that was not there before, through ramdom mutation, that benefits the survivability of the species, and is passed on to succeeding generations resulting in a new kind. The experiments that you are describing have not been proven to have added any genetic information that didn't already exist within the subjects already. Manipulation of the current gene pool is nothing new, and has been done through selective breeding, and evirnoment change, for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years. This can create amazing differences within kinds, but no amount of manipulation of existing genetic material is going to make a fish become an elephant. This can only happen with the addition of genetic information, which we have not yet observed in nature, nor within a controlled environment. With the advent of genetic mapping, mabey we can get a chance to better test this. But it has not been done yet. I believe that it cannot happen. But I am open to the possibility. If it is proven to occur, (ie., the addition of genetic material by ramdom mutation that did not exist before that benefits the survivability of the subject and is passed on to succeeding generations resulting in a new kind), then I will have to revisit my beliefs.

And since evolution has withstood that rigorous testing, I do accept it as true.

I've mentioned four cases you can go and check for yourself. If you want more information, have a read of "The Ancestor's Tale". Some parts are a bit tough to get through, such as the unrooted trees in the Gibbon's tale, but the parts I described are very easy to understand.

It may have withstood rigorous testing, but so has the Bible. What the testing of evolution has not done, as I have already described, is produce evidence of new genetic material that did not exist before that benefits the survivability of the species, and is passed on to succeeding generations resulting in a new kind. This leaves evolution in the same boat as the Bible. Tested, but unproven. Until it can be shown that new genetic information that didn't previously exist recesively or otherwise within the subject is created by random mutation that benefits the survivability of the species and is passed on to succeeding generations resuting in a new kind, evolution simply remains a theory. A very expensive theory, but a theory nonetheless. And everyone that hangs their hat on this theory, and calls it a proven fact, when it is not, is already excercising an act of pure faith. Exactly the behavior that they scorn in others.

This then brings us to the moral question. Why sould someone choose to excercise faith that their is no God, rather than choosing to excercise their faith in the existence of God? Jesus told us. He said that people do not come to the light, lest their deeds should be reproved. He also said that the world hated Him becasue He testified of it, that its works were evil. The moral motive for atheism is laid bare by the words of Jesus. It is simply the natural mans attempt at escaping accountability for their actions. The natural man wants above all else, to justify himself. To believe that he is good. To believe that he is not accountable to God. And that is always the motive.

Peace...

 

[dkbwarrior]

You claim that science has not disproved the bible? You may as well make the claim: " Science has yet to disprove a single figure in MARVEL COMICS".

Science does not indulge in the SUPERNATURAL and the UNFALSIFIABLE and the SPIRITUAL. If it did it would be chasing polka dotted pink unicorns instead of dealing with the PHYSICAL world.

The Bible belongs to the spiritual world and science to the physical. Now please show me where the Bible has disproved science? It has not? Well then thank you for making my point!

May FSM bless you with a thousand plates of pasta!

Much of the Bible is falsifiable. It is just that in every case where people thought they had proved it wrong, (ie, the existence of David), proof has been discovered that supports the historical accuracy of the text.

I never claimed the Bible disproved science. I believe that they complement each other.

Peace...

 

[Tiberius]

"Vulcans" and "Warp Drives" would be physical objects. Whether or not they are real has no bearing on the existence of the physical or the non-physical which impels.

And what does this mean if you translate it into English?