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.
it must be nice to build theories from very incomplete evidence but then again, piltdown man was based upon 1 tooth.
one wonders if any of these people can be honest...
<staff edit>First off, you're conflating Piltdown and Nebraska Man. Second, I doubt you even know enough about either, much less both to understand what really happened in those cases.
because information is missing which could change the conclusion. even the fact of finding a skeleton cannot be construed as complete evidence for their is all sorts of mitigating data which needs to be factored in.Why is an "incomplete" skeleton not evidence?
i didn't reverse, i corrected an oversight.
here is the latest article about a discovery which reminds me very much like the biblical account, only the words and dates are changed to fit their comfortable beliefs.
i have said this before, not here, that secular scientists discover much evidence to prove the Bible true but they attribute their discoveries to something else.
that aloneis reason not to accept their thinking as they do not lead to God but away from Him:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience...loodcreatedgreatdividebetweenbritainandfrance
Hello archaeologist,why not justcome out and say it---it was the result of Noah's flood.
I don't believe any scientists. I have seen enough logical systems work interlarded with useless logic(welcome to computers). The results are the same(just a little slower). It means there is truth in it but I never trust where they pin point it without due process. I try to reason it myself. It does not mean they are of no value but I get heartburn whenever "scientists" pretend they are not dominated by politics and assumptions.
I probably would not call it Noah's flood either but I would certainly bring up flood myths. I have my doubts that such a myth would last 450,000 years so it would certainly seem to conflict with anthropology or its a different flood. I also think humanity could have been quite localized during the time of the flood and may have been the relative world.
Here is one too close for chance and nowhere near the Middle East. There is clearly a record of a flood that impacted a common human ancestry. All of them seem to suggest a start of the human race and the raven and Noah's doves are just too close to ignore.
An Algonquin Legend
The god Michabo was hunting with his pack of trained wolves one day when he saw the strangest sight, the wolves entered a lake and disappeared. He followed them into the water to fetch them and as he did so, the entire world flooded.
Michabo then sent forth a raven to find some soil with which to make a new earth, but the bird returned unsuccessful in its quest.
Then Michabo sent an otter to do the same thing, but again to no avail.
Finally he sent the muskrat and she brought him back enough earth to begin the reconstruction of the world. The trees had lost their branches in the flood, so Michabo shot magic arrows at them that immediately became new branches covered with leaves.
Then Michabo married the muskrat and they became the parents of the human race.
Yes, you do.I don't believe any scientists.
You didn't get a detail wrong, you conflated to entirely different subjects and demonstrated that you knew nothing about either by citing them, nor why they are irrelavent to this particular thread
You trusted them to do so. You trust that your computer is, right now, not putting out harmful radiation that with encourage cancer
Oh. Okay. So clearly you'd buy your computer from the cheapest source. After all, you trust God to make it work properly. You don't need good manufacturers, just God. It's not like you own a Dell, HP, Compaq, IBM or other name-brand computer. Nah, I'm sure you have some no-name barebones box assembled by a teenager with a screwdriver and a garage. After all, you don't need to trust scientists, just God!you got it wrong, i and others do not trust the scientists, the secular mechanics, dentists and so on; we believe in and trust God that no harm will come to us and at the times we have to depend on the secular world, we trust God is making sure all is done right.
at no time do we put our faith in a secular person or persons.
I believe in the results of good engineering. I don't believe in scientists. Hello "I am a scientist so you gotta believe me now".Yes, you do.
Unfortunately, intellectual honesty seems to be an anathema to you. You believe scientists where it is convenient for you and deny their findings (even those equally well-supported as anything else you accept!) when you don't like them.
You're using a computer. Right now. As you're reading this. Scientists made that computer.
You trusted them to do so. You trust that your computer is, right now, not putting out harmful radiation that with encourage cancer.
You trust that your computer will not overheat, spark and light a fire in your house while you're away one day.
You trust thousands of other aspects of your life that scientists worked to make possible for you. And you insult them by pretending that in this one area their results are somehow sub-par. What a petty viewpoint to take. Have some respect for the scientific community.
No, don't pull the false dichotomy out.I believe in the results of good engineering. I don't believe in scientists. Hello "I am a scientist so you gotta believe me now".
You believe a scientist's conclusions 99.9% of the time, simply because you trust experts. That 00.1% that you don't is not for any rational reason, but simply because of an arbitrary, religiously-motivated belief.You are abusing context. One does not have to believe scientists to believe existential realities created by scientists.
Yes, you do. You just selectively discard portions of your life where you've been wronged by what you perceive as the scientific community in the past (ignoring the incredibly beneficial impact it's had on your life).Are you kidding ?Look at what (some) scientist have done to our food supply? Trans fats anyone? I was told that margarine was good because it was made of corn oil. Since I knew butter was supposed to be "bad" because it was hydrogenated and they went ahead an hydrogenated corn oil I knew they were full of it. I stopped margarine consumption in the 80's. I don't trust them.
Scientists never make conclusions without evidence. Evidence for evolution exists. In ridiculous quantity. There is more evidence for evolution than you could possibly hope to fully understand in a lifetime. In the past week there have been two articles on new discoveries in evolutionary biology on the front page of CNN.com. The evidence is clear and mammoth in scope. For whatever reason, though, you deny it.I told my boss it was stupid to buy E10Ks because very few of them were in service and the hardware problems would be discovered by us. All Microsoft software is considered alpha code by me. Along came the memory issues. I believe in existential realities. If lab tops exploded I would not use them. When scientists make assumptions with no evidence I do not believe them.
No, you just think that's how you make your decisions, but that's because you haven't actually paid attention to your life. Take a day, and every time you use something created by a scientist or founded on a principal that scientists discovered, make a little mental tally. You trust scientists, because you're a sane individual. You arbitrarily discard a small handful of areas of scientific discovery because you're human.You must have me confused with a test pilot. There are many sub par almost idiot level scientists. I do not know which one I am dealing with so I look for existential realities. I like Tesla but he produced useful things unlike many other scientists.
And you know hydrogenated vegetable oil is bad how?Are you kidding ?Look at what (some) scientist have done to our food supply? Trans fats anyone? I was told that margarine was good because it was made of corn oil. Since I knew butter was supposed to be "bad" because it was hydrogenated and they went ahead an hydrogenated corn oil I knew they were full of it. I stopped margarine consumption in the 80's. I don't trust them.
No, don't pull the false dichotomy out.
You believe in scientists' claims when it suits you. You believe a scientist when he tells you "This microchip will not overheat, causing your computer to erupt in sparks and light your house on fire," because that's the reasonable thing to do.
Trusting the experts is what every sane person does, because no one person is capable of being an expert in every field. You don't believe a scientist when he tells you "This fossil is millions of years old and is the ancestor species of this other species," because you don't like that idea. Or so it is with most creationists. Your other thread leaves me somewhat confused as to what your particular position is.
You believe a scientist's conclusions 99.9% of the time, simply because you trust experts. That 00.1% that you don't is not for any rational reason, but simply because of an arbitrary, religiously-motivated belief.
Yes, you do. You just selectively discard portions of your life where you've been wronged by what you perceive as the scientific community in the past (ignoring the incredibly beneficial impact it's had on your life).
Scientists never make conclusions without evidence.
Evidence for evolution exists. In ridiculous quantity. There is more evidence for evolution than you could possibly hope to fully understand in a lifetime. In the past week there have been two articles on new discoveries in evolutionary biology on the front page of CNN.com. The evidence is clear and mammoth in scope. For whatever reason, though, you deny it.
No, you just think that's how you make your decisions, but that's because you haven't actually paid attention to your life. Take a day, and every time you use something created by a scientist or founded on a principal that scientists discovered, make a little mental tally. You trust scientists, because you're a sane individual. You arbitrarily discard a small handful of areas of scientific discovery because you're human.
And you know hydrogenated vegetable oil is bad how?
isay that i have faith in God and trust Him so why wouldn't i extend that to what i purchase or have repaired? i am not always in control of who gets to work on my things so it only makes sense to follow God's leading to buy the right items that are safe.Oh. Okay. So clearly you'd buy your computer from the cheapest source. After all, you trust God to make it work properly. You don't need good manufacturers, just God. It's not like you own a Dell, HP, Compaq, IBM or other name-brand computer. Nah, I'm sure you have some no-name barebones box assembled by a teenager with a screwdriver and a garage. After all, you don't need to trust scientists, just God!
The amount of nonsense you'll try to push on others in order to make it look like your beliefs are coherent is astounding. "No, we don't trust scientists! Ignore the security system in my home! Don't look in my garage at my car, with its airbag deployment system and anti-lock brakes! God will protect me, because I trust God!"
here is a twist:
.... i could go on but it is very simple, science has intruded into a realm that is not within its authority and has usurped the proper rulers and has run roughshod over its members.
...
Most Christian scientists have reached the same conclusion. In fact, the first group to tackle and disprove the global flood was a group of Christian scientists. Nice try, though.1. they are not of God nor do they believe in Him
See above.2. they do not believe in Jesus or the Holy Spirit
Why does it matter what they seek. As long as they seek to discover what is true, they'll reach the same conclusion, right? I mean, the Bible is true, isn't it? And scientists do search for truth.3. they do not seek to prove the Bible true
Well, yeah. I mean, they do.4. they think they are the ones who have the authority
to determine what took place when or How God did
what when.
How is a scientist investigating science trespassing on anything?secular scientists and science itself is actually trespassors into a field they do not belong.
Sure they do. You just don't want to acknowledge that, because that would give them credibility in your mind, and that's an uncomfortable prospect.they do not have the comprehension, the tools, the mindset with which to investigate the Biblcal world or its events.
You don't need to be present at the event to understand the event. We can study the past and reach the same conclusions as if we were witness to the event first-hand.why?
1. they were not there to record or observe what took place.
On the contrary, we have lots of ancient writings dated to well over 6,000 years ago. Heck, I read recently about a discovery in China of some precursor symbols to the Chinese alphabet dated to about 8,000 years ago.2. there are very few ancient records which speak on certain events and none for those prior to the flood save the Bible.
No, they're looking at the past to determine the past. This is only a problem in your head.3. they are looking at our present to determine the past
The past is always there, waiting to be uncovered. And that's what science does. In fact, science has gotten very very good at it.4. they do not realize that the past is gone, trampled down by myriads of succeeding events.
Science is also very good at dealing with imperfect evidence by collecting more evidence to fill in the missing spaces in our understanding.5. they do not realize that their 'evidence' is compromised, corrupted, misplaced, out of context, and the reasons for such artifacts being found where they have been, have long died with their previous owners.
It's not gone. The evidence is still there. You just don't want to admit it.6. they do not have the correct tools to measure or investigate that which is gone.
Nope, it's scientific. Evolution is utterly scientific, in fact.7. it is a theological issue not a scientific one and science is way over its head in investigating biblical events given its present structure and leaders and given God's criteria for understanding those events.
Now you're just repeating yourself. You already used this one.8. they do not look to God for the directions they need to take.
Nah, that's just what you keep trying to get everyone to believe. We're not idiots, archaeologist.9. they rely on assumptions, conjecture, inferrences, hypothesis everything but the truth.
No you couldn't, not without repeating yourself. Heck, you already have.i could go on
The proper "rulers" of the scientific realm are scientists. Stop trying to deflect criticism. Defend your position as best you can or leave it.but it is very simple, science has intruded into a realm that is not within its authority and has usurped the proper rulers and has run roughshod over its members.
Remember, creationists, archaeologist says study and thought is bad. Don't study. Don't think. Just blindly follow. Willful ignorance is bliss, right?it needs to humble itself and go back to its rightful place and remove itself from issues it was not meant to determine the outcome.
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?