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.
I'm sorry. I know that Situational Ethics have been taught in schools, and promoted through television programming for a few decades now, but some people still believe in Absolute Truth and that "the ends do not justify the means" however unpopular that is now. I am one of those.Ead said:But what if a wrong is used for the greater good for someone else?
Ead said:I have been having a bit of a problem understanding some things about your Ultimate Evil guy. It seems that whenever something threatens Christianity, be it science, other religions, or questions, it is Satan's lies and works at play.
So, is Satan just everything everywhere that doesnt agree with Christianity? Or is it something else?
I said a Theory can never be proven to be fact ONLY because there is always the chance that one piece of evidence contradics it. Though, the theory of Gravity is "Just a theory", yet you dont go running around seeing pencils float away.
And evolution is science, not religion. And Evolution has just as much evidence suporting it as Gravity. The only "Evidence" against it is either false, lies, or just foolish. And all the facts against it are not scientific, so they cannot affect it.
No, theories or the union of many facts into a common thread of reasoning. seeing a million apples, pencils, boulders, and people falling onto the ground leads us to believes something is pulling us towards it (AKA Gravity).
Im not sure about that statement. We have history evidence for it. And we can look at animals and see relationships between them. We can even find "Missing Links" to connect two supposedly completely different species together. And we have done that alot.
Believing in one part of the Theory of Evolution is like tearing a page out of the Bible and saying "This page is right, but the rest is wrong" even though it proves the rest of it. It makes no sense to do that.
A Theory is never as Good as a Fact, It is little more then a Story that is made up to explain the facts that are found, but is limited by what is found.
Unless we are talking about Evolution, that particular Theory seems to be outside of the realm of Facts, Like, Dinosaurs go from being reptiles to birds, and the Theory of Evolution is undaunted, as if that had no impact on it at all. Funny that, dont you think?
You seem so sure of that.
It is a Religion, in every sense. You will find many Scientific Groups and Organizations that place Evolution among their statements of faith, as proudly as adamantly as Christian Church would say Jesus is Salvation.
But this is not the topic of Debate, so I will not, (Unless you want to) peruse this issue any further.
You have been given incorrect information. It was the Establishment of the Second (2ND) Law of Motion being Violated that lead to the Discovery of Gravity.
No we have not, not as much as some would so much like to believe. The Progression stages are a bit of a play on desire. You see, what we really find is the Broken remains of part of a Skull and Maybe a Bone or two) then we use artist talent and a little influence of what we want the final to be (If we Believe in Evolution and we can make this look like a transition fossil, then, that is what it is going to be, regardless of what it was), and from this we formulate what the whole skull would be, from there we formulate the body (With no parts, or maybe a bone or two) and place it in where we believe it should it fit, in many cases, there have been mistakes regarding what heads we have placed on what bodies, because if scavengers disturbing the bodies , etc.
So, Although I trust they are doing the Best they Can, I can not take on faith they are 100% correct, many mistakes have been made) and if they are not correct in their findings (Facts) that leads to a questionable conclusion or Theory
Micro Evolution does not depend on Macro, so it can be viewed and accepted on its own merits. (Which are Pretty Good to tell the Truth)
Macro on the other hand uses or builds it support from Micro. So its a Theory dependent on itself, isnt that a circular argument if they are same Theory. Why yes it is.
So they must be viewed as separate Theories for them to contain any validity.
I know, many people will say You do not understand Evolution if you say Macro and Micro, but a Theory can not depend on itself for support, as such, they must be view and treated separate or they loose any form of scientific relationship. Although the line is pretty muddy as it is.
Actually Creationistst refute macro-evolution because the Bible says God created everything in its' own kind. He made certain kinds, and those kinds reproduced. There is evolution within each kind (micro-evolution), but no crossovers.Ead said:Micro Evolution supports Macro easily. It could exist on it's own, but it would have no basis of "Where did it all come from". Macro introduces the thought of adaptions going far enough to drastically change an organism until it was a group of it's own by gradual, small changes. Thats exactly the premisis of micro, only over a larger period of time. The time issue is what makes Creationists scoff it off. But they find it easy to accept half of evolution because they cant refute it. If people never saw micro evolution, Creationists would say it didnt exist either.
As the old saying goes "If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck..." If all signs point to Evolution, why then do you say its not true?
Makes sense to me. If life came from a simple goo in the oceans and turned into all the life on Earth, then of course the creatures and plants would be able to turn into other species. Makes perfect sense to me.
Cults circling Evolution have never crossed my ears nor eyes before.
And there is a major difference between Religion and Science. Science is based on observable facts, Religion is based on unobservable facts.
Science studies natural laws while Religion follows Supernatrual laws or beings. Seems like complete opposites to me.
Violated as is contradicted? What is the second law of motion... The amount of movement is directly proportional to the net force acting on it, and the direction is in the direction of the net force. How does that contradict Gravity? Gravity pulls things into itself at a constant rate depending on mass, and objects get moved by it in proportion on how much force is acting on it... Makes sense to me, dunno how it contradics it.
Now a days they check for skelital structure quite a bit. Have you heard of the scientific steps they take to recreate skelital structures? Every bone is proportional to every other in some way (Unless of deformity). And using very precise methods, they can recronstruct skelitons even if they only have a few pieces of it to study. And not only that, they find complete skelitons to further thier evidence.
They avoid this by constant questioning and testing. People on a dig found a tooth that was thousands of years old. Scientists thought it was an ancient human, and they were very excited about it. Now, they could have easily run around with this tooth and said "It is real! We found the missing link!" But no. The same scientists that foolow Evolution said "Hold on". And they tested the tooth. It was a pig's tooth in fact. A whole community that is based on discovery and truth will not lie about such things.
Micro Evolution supports Macro easily. It could exist on it's own, but it would have no basis of "Where did it all come from"
If people never saw micro evolution, Creationists would say it didnt exist either.
But, I believe you have only studies one side of the picture. When you start to look more into it, and really look at the facts, scrutinize and check and recheck what people have said, where the theory makes it facts and stance, it got quite a great number of holes in it.
If Evolution, was a Contested as the Bible, it would have been dismissed a long time ago.
http://www.megabaud.fi/~lampola/english/17evidences.html
http://www.tanbooks.com/doct/science_today.htm
http://www.seekfind.net/Amazing_Facts/Here_is_the_proof_of_evolution.html
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/evolution_is_false_religion.htm
http://www.biblepage.org/creation.html
http://www.carm.org/evolution.htm
But then again, if you want to just dismiss what these people have said, and go blindly following the faith of Evolution, ok
But, that takes a lot of faith.
And PS: An Amoeba becoming 12 Foot Tall Animal all from natural reproduction, is nothing short of a miracle, to view it as anything else, is to discredit it.
But then again, each to their own faith.
One Can believe in Evolution and Jesus at the same time.
No, you misunderstand me.
Dinosaurs were first categorized at Reptiles. They were recognized and assumed to be reptiles. It was taught that they were reptiles for many years, Then we discover (Very Recently) that we were wrong and they were really birds, or avian like creatures.
The Theory of Evolution get an overhaul? Nope, remains unchanged.
So it was not dependent on facts? What kind of Theory is that?
This statement is irrelevant. Cults have nothing to do with religion. I do not see cults of Daoism. Does that make it not a religion?
Well, now we enter muddy waters. Have you ever seen a species doe anything but subdivide?
Have you ever seen a Positive Mutation?
Have we ever witnessed anything that would support that DAN can be gained and lost, IE: a 12 Strand Chromosome animal, slowly becoming a 14 Chromosome animal?
No, what we have is, Well, if people with blue eyes (Genetice Drift) are different then people with brown eyes and this difference is enough to support mass Scale Evolution.
That was until Evolution came to the picture. See, science is Good, Most of the Time, when it works in the here and now, Its when it gets into Origin Theories that it becomes muddled.
Umm yes, however, the Apple when it fell, at first was at rest. With no observable Force acting upon it. So it when it moved, there was concluded that, there must be an outside force acting upon this object.
The Force acting upon the apple, May have been a Pushing Force, what makes you so sure it was a pulling force?
But my bad, it really was the first Law, had to go look that up. But same principle applies.
Where do you get this from, Complete Skeletons?
They find what they find, and more often then not, its not that much. To find a complete skeleton is quite the find.
Yah, after Piltdown man they got a little gun shy, which is a good thing. But what if they used that tooth to add to the collection of Human Progression and later found it false. Would the Theory of Evolution Suffer, or better yet, would the scientific community as a whole suffer? Hardly, It would be a blip on the map, like all the other mistakes and goofs, nothing more, and things would just keep going on. People would still rave at how great and pure and correct They are.
Umm it doesnt need it. That is the joy of a Theory. It only needs to go as far as it wants. If Micro only explains what happens on a short Scale, (Which is what it does) then that is all it needs to it. Its viable, and helpful to scientific progress.
Micro (Adaptation) Evolution, is what is used when people use the Theory of Evolution for biological study.
If we eliminated Macro, it would make no impact on Scientific study or progress at all, because, asides from the people digging up bones that use it to get grants, its a worthless theory.
What validity would it be, if people never saw it? If no one saw it, it would most likely never make it to Theory Level.
Ead said:And what is Daoism?
Ead said:Well, ill get back to my original question then.
If God created Earth and everything on it at about (According to Creationists) 6,000 years ago, how do we have evidence all over the universe pointing to much, much older? Ken Miller says in that clip of him "I do not believe in a deceptive God". Because, some Creationists argue that God put all these fossils and stuff all over just to fool us to think Earth is older than it is supposedly is.
Some could argue the Devil did it just to decieve us all and stuff. But why would God allow such a thing to defile his creation? And if Satan cant be everywhere, how did fossils and evidence spring up everywhere? How could Satan have so much power as to create matter and age them so much?
Aye! I can explain that one!!Lilly of the Valley said:Well, can you explain the Mt. St. Helen's event then w/ the earth being billions of years old? Beceause that event in 1980 showed that the stuff that some claim needs billions of years only needed about 2 weeks or less.
Plus, the event of the flood explains fossils everywhere...
Well, ill get back to my original question then.
If God created Earth and everything on it at about (According to Creationists) 6,000 years ago, how do we have evidence all over the universe pointing to much, much older?
So, what does this mean? It means that with this dating method or any other, we cannot date anything in recent memory (Oh, about 100 years or more. I havent looked it up, but different dating methods have different time spans. Thats why we have so many! ^.^). So lava cannot be dated with these methods because it comes before the number of B partivles are high enough to have an accurate reading. Older materials (Say a couple thousand years old) can be dated accuratly because the number of B particles falls within the range of accuracy for that given test.
Anyway, the way the dating system works is bases on the decay of radioactive particles in a substance. The substence (This case lava) has nearly 100% of Particle A. As time passes, the decay of the Particle A will yeild more and more Particle B. The way scientists measure the age of things with this particular dating method (I think it is argon testing, since there is no carbon in lava to really test >.<) is to ratio the particles together.
Ken Miller says in that clip of him "I do not believe in a deceptive God". Because, some Creationists argue that God put all these fossils and stuff all over just to fool us to think Earth is older than it is supposedly is.
Some could argue the Devil did it just to decieve us all and stuff. But why would God allow such a thing to defile his creation? And if Satan cant be everywhere, how did fossils and evidence spring up everywhere? How could Satan have so much power as to create matter and age them so much?
Are you under the impression that God created Adam as a baby? Or that He only sowed seeds to create trees? Or that He put eggs on earth to hatch into birds? Or that He put stars in the sky whose light wouldn't reach us for x number of years?Ead said:Well, ill get back to my original question then.
If God created Earth and everything on it at about (According to Creationists) 6,000 years ago, how do we have evidence all over the universe pointing to much, much older?
Robinsegg said:You see, God created a fully mature earth/universe.
I have no problem believing God created everything fully mature. Adam and Eve would have starved to death waiting for those fruit trees to grow and bear fruit!Robinsegg said:Are you under the impression that God created Adam as a baby? Or that He only sowed seeds to create trees? Or that He put eggs on earth to hatch into birds? Or that He put stars in the sky whose light wouldn't reach us for x number of years?
You see, God created a fully mature earth/universe. That's why things seem so old. There's also a theory of things aging/decaying at a different rate before/after the Flood. Oh, and that radioactive materials came up "from the deeps" durring the Flood. Those would also change "dating techniques" a bit.
Rachel
Vegas said:Was he created with callouses and muscles... he already knew how to walk and talk... how did he learn that?
Did he have a beard already... I mean, did God intend for us to be bearded or clean shaven?
Did he already have bacteria in his digestive sytem or did he have to watch his diet for awhile before he could build up the necessary bacteria in order to digest his food?
I have a simpler question about trees... did the first trees have age rings?
Were they created with fruit, blossoms or buds... or were they dormant like in winter?
The problem of course lies with the bugs that pollinate them and live off the honey they make and store. Or did God create bee hives already stocked with honey for the bees?
As far as fertility goes, did God create dead and dying plants and animals to begin the decomposition process so necessary for fertility?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?