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.
Don't just rely on wikipedia for your definitions
A delusion is also a false opinion.
Atheism is the opinion that there is no theistic god.
Atheism is irrational, based on nothing other than opinion
Prove to me otherwise. Give me a factual, evidence based reason for atheism?
its spelled AtomYet we are the babies of the Adam.
What is your source for this statement (other than your opinion)? My research shows that it has found acceptance amongst the majority of historical scholars:
"As to the reliability of that source, following normal historical practice, it is prudently assumed to be accurate until demonstrated otherwise." John P. Meier (A Marginal Jew, p. 91)
"..there are good reasons for concluding with the vast majority of scholars that this passage is fundamentally sound" (referring to Annals 15:44) Robert Van Voorst (Jesus Outside the New Testament, pp. 42-43)
Yes but you did go into any more details then "it stands up to historical testing" sorry but that is a claim not evidence.On the contrary - it is completely scientific. That's the whole point!
Do you know what objectivity is? It means that something ( a text in this case) can assessed and measured outside of an individuals opinion or preference..
So as I say, the validity is established in that it stands up to all the historical testing that I have previously mentioned a number of times.
It's not a claim of validity - something becomes valid because there is no evidence to prove the opposite i.e. that it is invalid.
So once again I say - until it can be proven (with evidence) The Bible is invalid, then the testing and research that has been conducted which supports it's validity, still holds true.
This isn't based on my opinion or view - it's merely acknowledging the facts that exist objectively to anybody to support it.
No need. You fail to believe in many theistic gods. I just take it one god further.
Besides my position is the correct position. I don't believe something until their is evidence for it. I don't need to provide evidence for my lack of belief in something. I don't need evidence to show that Odin doesn't exist ether.
Macroevolution has never occurred on this planet; after a series of micros, a species will hit a boundary that it cannot pass.Macroevolution is just a chain of microevolutions.
No, it isn't.Macroevolution is a.k.a. adaptation.
No argument there; but the $64,000.00 question is: Does that change occur?The difference is simply in degree of change.
Not hardly.Thanks to you
Macroevolution has never occurred on this planet; after a series of micros, a species will hit a boundary that it cannot pass.
Every human is indeed different, but not as different as you might think. We can see differences in personality or the shape of the face or height or posture, but that's nothing compared to what's the same: every aspect of their biochemistry is practically identical, and that's a lot of stuff right there. A parent is virtually identical to the child; the differences we humans can see are absolutely minuscule compared to the similarities.But no child has the same fingerprints as anyone on earth....DNA is different...there might be commonalities between a child and parent they get through genes but every human being on earth is different...there have never been two people identically the same. Identical twins don't have the same fingerprints but have the same DNA.
Well, that's point of the thread - to ask questions about science and technology, and to understand what you don't as yet understand. And, as it happens, I'm more than happy to budge. I'm a scientist, and one of our core skills is the ability to swiftly and unashamedly change our minds, once given a sufficiently good reason. I've been proven wrong before, and I'll undoubtedly be proven wrong again - and that's a good thing, becuase otherwise I'll forever be holding on to false beliefs.I am interested to a point. We will never agree because our worldviews are opposite. I won't budge and I am sure you won't. You seen very confident and I believe that Christ is the only way and the Truth. I am not going to sit and read pages of scientific theory that I don't get.
In the face of no evidence, I consider "I don't know" to be the logical choice. Why is "God did it" more logical if there's no evidence either way?The point I made is valid. Science can't answer the big questions. At best they guess at the first cause...and like you admitted....they don't know. So we are left with a few choices. And I choose a creator. It is just as logical as what science thus far has to offer.
Scientists certainly err, which is the purpose of peer review: all the other scientists scrutinise a published paper mercilessly, and only the truth is left standing. As for biases, scientists are well aware of those, and there are a lot of quite clever techniques to remove all possible bias. Clinical trials are double-blind for that very reason - no matter what the personal bias, there's no way for it to contaminate results."First, a clarification: science is the search for truth through empiricism and logical deduction. Scientists acquire facts, then posit hypotheses to explain those facts, then make predictions from those hypotheses, then test those predictions with experiments. If the hypotheses are right, they eventurally become theories. If the predictions fail, then the hypotheses are discredited. This is the Scientific Method."
And do scientists error? Yes Do they work from a bias or viewpoint? Yes
Why not? Why is science fundamentally incapable of accruing evidence regarding whether or not there was a first cause?And they won't ever know. God does exist and He knows everything. Science can't begin to address this question.
There are clear mechanical and technological limitations on experimenting with such things. Primarily, we simply can't recreate the conditions of the early universe to probe what happened back then - but that's why the LHC was built, to recreate such conditions.Yes, again Science does not know. Not a clue. All those brilliant scientists and no answer. How long have they been working on this one?
Yes. Ever seen a chimp with no fur? They look pretty much like old men. Humans and chimps have certainly diversified, but our similarities are staggering.Sure and some humans kill their own. But we do not crawl around on the earth as the animals do...so to say we are living like they are is absurd. We do not live or at least it is not accepted that society live based on ......"the survival of the fittest." People help people and we have laws that prevent this from happening.
At one time if we were one in the same.......how on earth did we end up looking like we did.....and the monkey and ape.....we see in zoos.....still look the same?
On the contrary, Darwin and his theory made great strives to show the races were, in fact, very similar. The culture of the time was extremely racist; Abraham Lincoln, despite advocating freeing the slaves, was quite firm that the black race was in all ways inferior to the white race. Darwin was not racist - rather, he explicitly argued against racist ideology, and his theory only served to show that the races were not distinct species but nothing more than subtle blends of skin colour, that the intellect of white and black people was virtually (if not exactly) identical, that both white and black people are descendants from the same ancestors, etc. Primarily, he showed that it is culture, not biology, that accounts for differences in intellect.We are civilized, we have morals......animals do not.
Darwin was a racist...his theory racist. He would be horse whipped if he made the statements he did then today. He also was sexist. His theories that the black race would die out......was totally wrong. Or do you think he was right and in the end...they will die out..and be overtaken by the white race? Seems to me the black race is doing fine. Boy there were people however that ran with his theories (Hitler and Margaret Sanger) and set upon making his theory happen.
Would killing me help you survive? No. Therefore, you have no right to kill me. If we were ever in a situation where murder is essential for survival, then there are laws to excuse such actions - those lost at sea who resort to cannibalism to survive are often seen in a pitiable light. Murder for no reason is inexcusable, but for reasons of necessity (self-defence, for instance) it can often be excused.Not really. People overtake governments to survive. They want to wipe out religions to survive. Who competes in our country for food? Sure we have homeless.....but most Americans have a roof over their heads.
What is the cause of violence in relation to evolution? Isn't is directly connected to evolution? We are animals.....we want to survive....so look out I have a right to kill you for my own survival?
If you're not talking about traits, then you're not talking about survival of the fittest. As I said, the phrase is used for something quite specific indeed, and it is often misunderstood to have something to do with social eugenics.Im not talking about traits....as in hair color or height or build...I am talking about emotional makeup....the inside drive will of a human being. More importantly a moral code....why we do the things we do.
Indeed, but not for the reason you think. Evolution is a scientific theory explaining the origin of biodiversity. It has nothing to do with morals, except insofar as it can explain certain biological drives (such as altruism). It is no more related to morality than Einstein's theory of General Relativity.So why are they wrong based on evolution? If we all evolved and are different...then who is to say that anyones morals are wrong? If I want to sleep with your husband is that wrong? Hey I might have lost mine and have starving children and he said he would give me money. Would stealing files from my doctors office and giving the information to someone who might be hurt by someones records.....is that wrong? How does evolution address this? No God...no morals......we are just animals. No moral absolutes in evolution?
On the contrary, evolution is silent on the issue of who's right.What is necessity? Mine might be different than yours. And by evolutionary standards......we both are right.
As I said, there are moral urges that have evolved, but culture can twist them into something altogether different. How do you think terrorist leaders convince people to blow themselves up? By convincing them that it's the right thing to do, that it will save their friends and families. In essence, they take the benign 'altruism' urge and twist it into something evil. Even though the terrorist leaders know its wrong, they trick others into thinking its right by preying on these otherwise quite moral urges.Explain as in factual or guess? It should be easy for the evolutionist because none of what you just posted should matter like you said. Altuism gene? How about passing the "I am a terrorist and gonna blow up the Twin Towers" or passing the "I am a serial killer gene"?
'Good' and 'evil' weren't born. They're labels used to describe actions. "Killing is evil", "Charity is good", that sort of thing. We have these labels because we have instinctive, gut feelings that such-and-such an action is 'right' - and these instincts have evolutionary origins. Culture can twist those base instincts and change what we view of right and wrong, convince us that killing is right by preying on the more basal instinct of protecting one's family. Culture can do that, and that, my friend, is the origin of evil - influential people convincing others to do something that they themselves would otherwise have considered wrong.I don't believe they evolved and of course you just include them because you have too but you can't exlain the W's. How was evil born? How was good born? Why?
You want be to believe that they just evolved?
The energy that created these basal elements, hydrogen and helium, stems ultimately from the singularity wherein all matter in the universe was condensed. When that came from, or if it came from anywhere at all, is presently unknown to us. Nonetheless, we can trace back the biodiversity of life to that first lipid bubble full of polymers, and we can trace those back to simple molecules in a warm ocean, and we can trace those back further still. The current barrier is the singularity - but there's no reason to suppose that, in the future, we won't be able to probe further still.But what created the energy that created the hydrogen etc? And the energy that produced the energy what created that? What was the first cause......
Evolution is was happens when replicators replicate inaccurately. It doesn't serve a benefit or purpose, it just happens, as inexorably as gravity.and why are we here? What purpose did evolution benefit?
What do you mean, they "aligned just right mathematically"?How did all this happen and in PERFECT HARMONY. The stars aligned just right mathematically....
What about it? It has a very well-understood biological origin. I can explain it in depth if you like, but this post is already quite long.and the design of the eye.
Indeed, which is why no one believes it happened by change - it is chance coupled with selection mechanisms. It's the latter that drives these changes to occur. Random mutation varies individuals from the mean, and then selection mechanisms push the population one way or the other.Evolution....all happened by random chance? To believe all this happened by chance.....takes a lot of faith to believe.
You seem to be conflating a lot of different issues and terms, so I'll address them seperately.What created the first molecule? Big Bang........what happens when something explodes? Do things come together or do they blow up ? So out of an explosion....the eye was formed.....our morals....humans......animals......our bodies working in perfect harmony...our organs.....come on. How far fetched is this kind of thinking? I look at nature...and I see things growing old, they die and decay....they lose stucture. Evolution says however that things develop in complexity and stucture.
I already explained, in quite some depth, how the first life came to be. Remember my explanation of the lipid bubble filled with polymers? That, for all intents and purposes, was the first living thing. Or the precursor to the first living thing.Thought you said the first cause is not known? What is the first cause? A cell just doesn't appear. What caused the first life. And how did it come about if nothing before it was alive? Can you make a rock come alive?
Obviously, because we're not all the same. Our morals are evolved, but our culture is not. We share the same basal instincts and urges, from "I'm hungry and need to eat" to "That's my kid and I'll protect her to the death", but culture can twist those into quite unusual ends.Do unto others.......evolved? Yea right. Does everyone live by that motto? No
Why don't they if morals evolved and we all are the same?
Psalm 74:17a Thou hast set all the borders of the earth:I am certain that you cannot substantiate that claim.
When the heap becomes an ape?I was reminded of the Paradox of the Heap, today and I instantly thought of the question "when does microevolution become macroevolution?"
How long did it take you to figure that out? you needed a paradox for that?The answer is arbitrary, but there certainly is a difference between a heap and not a heap.
When the heap becomes an ape?What is that difference?
If you preset the number of times something can be added to the heap, I promise you, there will be no change.The degree of change.
Whatever -- but I'm talking about a time when changing ceases.It is easy to determine that, yes, there was a change as long as we use hysteresis.
Is this even a sentence?That it, knowing what the thing started as.
No.Do you know anything about jerboa?
These have everything to do with this subject matter and creationism. We creationists were asked for evidence. And we are doing just that. Creation....biblical accounts of creation.
Most of you are making us feel like we are idots...for believing the creation story from Genesis. But the fact is.....and why I bring up the questions is to show you that...you don't have the answers either and the fact that you defend evolution basically as the first cause...is just false. Science has no clue what that first cause was. So why your group is parading around here like you have the answers to these...I don't know because you can't prove us wrong.
I listed the questions...because I knew you could not answer them. This makes a big point....a point you just don't want to address.
The fact is this discussion or dialogue......is ridiculous. You are not looking for any evidence we might give...because this is a game to your side. Athiests, agnostics.....lurking aroung a website of God believers. Why? LOL
To learn anything? Not really Its a joke and entertainment for you. If you say there is no proof........THEN WHY ARE YOU HERE ASKING US? LOL
What you are doing is showing the meanspiritness of the people who share your worldview. The truth is...Christianity canot coexist in a world community with relative morality as its basis. And the evolutionary theory is based on this. One or the other worldview will yield. There are two worldviews represented here with two totally different belief systems clashing. This is way more than just how we were created it is spiritual in nature....thats the real nature of the battle.
I will state one last time my position.....evolution is not science at all, just a belief system about the past, a past we DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TOO. We live in the present. We can't directly test the past..using the scientific method. What evidences we have today are in the PRESENT. Creationism is also a belief about the past. We just base our beliefs in the Bible and a God that tells us what happened. Evolution comes from men who were not there and who are fallible and who all have biases. ARe they objective truth seekers? Not always. I choose to believe God.
I was just thinking that an athiest believes there is no God. Can they even entertain the question, did God create? I don't think so because the minute they do allow it as a question, they are no longer athiests. So here comes the bias. An athiest scientist who would look for fossils and the world around him... it wouldnt matter what evidence he would find...it would have nothing to do with biblical events or evidence. The idea of a god and evidence that would support it...well its unimaginable to an athiest. They never could abandon the athiest worldview. How much bias comes into his work? Creation can't even be considered.
If you preset the number of times something can be added to the heap, I promise you, there will be no change.
Let me get this straight.I don't agree with that, but it doesn't matter.
No they are not.The number of changes that have occurred, are still occurring,
Again, this isn't proper English and I don't know what you just said; but whatever it was, I disagree with it.... and will continue to occur in the evolutionary process is not "preset."
Suit yourself, Huram -- you have just as much right to believe the word of your whitecoats, as I have to believe the word of God.I don't agree with you saying that it is remaining the same.
And I do not accept that changes stop once a species becomes a new species. Your question about Homo erectus is a non sequitor.
Also, it's a complicated sentence, but it is proper English whether you agree with it or not. Remove the modifiers. It says "The number is not preset."
QV please:I wonder, though, since you "have to believe the word of God," if you can give me the chapter and verse that says that God is against people accepting evolution.
If it means anything, I use these verses as pertaining to [prescient] evolution:
Ecclesiastes 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.
Here, Solomon, the man who had apes imported, concludes that [prescient] evolution can take a hike.
Also notice that Solomon is referring to [prescient] evolution as an 'invention', and not a 'discovery' as evolutionists like to think.
I don't know what Darwin refers evolution to in his book, The Preservation of Favoured Races, but Solomon refers to [prescient] evolution as an 'invention'.
Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Here I interpret 'rudiments of the world' as the atoms, and believe that Paul is warning us to beware of those [scientists] who would 'spoil us' through scientifically-explained paradigms that are nothing more than Satan's philosophies -- this would include evolution.
1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
This is pretty self-explanatory, and notice what company Paul says [prescient] evolution keeps company with?
No, she is not, she is referring to all of it, and I quote again:
I stand on what I said....Genesis and evolution do not mix.
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?