Jump to content
The Big Bang Theory Forums
Sign in to follow this  
walnutcowboy

Bible On The History Channel.

Recommended Posts

Simply meant that I don't have the answers for everything nor do I feel a pressing need to always have an answer.  As Isaiah 55:8 states  "my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord"  (KJV)

 

In Isaiah 55:8 God is simply stating the emmence difference the human mind and God's mind. One does as one thinks!

 

Unlike you I do have a need to have an answer for everything, regarding spiriitual matters that is. God has provided Holy Scripture with those answers.

 

Your post #148 states that there are questions beyond our comprehension. I was asking you to elabourate on those questions. They maynot be beyond my comprehension.

Edited by Catweazle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Isaiah 55:8 God is simply stating the emmence difference the human mind and God's mind. One does as one thinks!

 

 

 

 

That is what I meant.  That my mind is no where near the caliber as God's so there is going to be questions I will not understand today, tomorrow or maybe not until the end of the world as we know it.  And I am totally fine with that.  I surely do not feel the pressing need to tell you what all my questions are since there are mostly of a personal nature.  I will simply rely on God to tell me in His own time.  But thank you for trying to guide me.  God bless you...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is what I meant.  That my mind is no where near the caliber as God's so there is going to be questions I will not understand today, tomorrow or maybe not until the end of the world as we know it.  And I am totally fine with that.  I surely do not feel the pressing need to tell you what all my questions are since there are mostly of a personal nature.  I will simply rely on God to tell me in His own time.  But thank you for trying to guide me.  God bless you...

 

Oh dear. I'm not trying guide you, I have enough trouble trying to guide myself.

 

I was just curious at what you may consider incomprehensible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear. I'm not trying guide you, I have enough trouble trying to guide myself.

 

I was just curious at what you may consider incomprehensible.

 

As a believer and looking at the big picture, I know that everything works for the glory of God and to those who are called according to His purpose.  I do not doubt that or find that hard to understand at all.  Looking at the specifics of any given situation gives myself and many other believers moments of pause, of not understanding God's plan.  Do we have to?  I don't believe so since that is where faith and trust come in.  9/11 rocked the country - believers and non believers alike.  I don't think it's at all wrong to say "wow I just don't understand why".  That was/is pretty much a gut reaction.  In time though we find acceptance and some bit of understanding.  But as I said previously, I do not need to know all the whys of the things that happened in my life.  It is sufficient to know now that God's will be done...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ecclesiastes 7:2-4

 

Better to go to the house of mourning
Than to go to the house of feasting,
For that is the end of all men;
And the living will take it to heart.
Sorrow is better than laughter,
For by a sad countenance the heart is made better.
The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning,
But the heart of fools is in the house of mirth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For anyone interested the miniseries The Bible is available on Amazon instant streaming for $1.99 an episode.  Now they do break down each 2 hour episode into 2 parts at $1.99 a piece.

 

Also Netflix has many faith/spiritual/family movies on instant streaming.  I have found some really good inspiring movies on there.  The latest out is a movie based on the Book of Ester.  Of course creative license is used but I found it to be a decent representation...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally get where you are coming from Lissie and I'm glad you have voiced your opinion and that you keep an open mind.  That is a very hard thing to do at times.  We tend to hold deep to our beliefs and come down hard on those who don't see it our way.  I have been guilty of that many, many times.

 

For me, I believe that the KJV is the inspired Word of God.  I believe those authors wrote down what God wanted them to write down.  Now their styles were different because if someone is telling any one of us something then it's going to be said with our "brand" of words so to speak. 

 

I find that this belief that I have suits me well.  I have grown up in the Catholic religion but I no longer consider myself to be an religion.  I am a believer. 

 

:icon_razz:

 

If the Bible is the inspired word of God, why does it contain many false claims such as Noah and the Flood (which Jesus himself believed in)? I'm not going to read through all the pages of this topic, so if this subject has already been covered, sorry for repeating it. Any views would be most appreciated. Moreover, I'm extremely surprised at how many theists on here presuppose the existence of a god in the first place? What proof do they have. Because whenever I'm in an argument with a theist - especially when it comes to scripture - it usually turns out like this:

 

Me: How do you know the Bible is the inspired word of God?

Theist: Because the Bible tells us so.

Me: Why do you believe in the Bible?

Theist: The Bible is infallible (or, in extreme cases, "because the Bible is the inspired word of God").

Me: How do you know the Bible is infallible?

Theist: The Bible is the inspired word of God.

 

In other words, a circular argument.

Edited by viddy9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Bible is the inspired word of God, why does it contain many false claims such as Noah and the Flood (which Jesus himself believed in)? I'm not going to read through all the pages of this topic, so if this subject has already been covered, sorry for repeating it. Any views would be most appreciated. Moreover, I'm extremely surprised at how many theists on here presuppose the existence of a god in the first place? What proof do they have. Because whenever I'm in an argument with a theist - especially when it comes to scripture - it usually turns out like this:

 

Me: How do you know the Bible is the inspired word of God?

Theist: Because the Bible tells us so.

Me: Why do you believe in the Bible?

Theist: The Bible is infallible (or, in extreme cases, "because the Bible is the inspired word of God").

Me: How do you know the Bible is infallible?

Theist: The Bible is the inspired word of God.

 

In other words, a circular argument.

 @ VIDDY9,

 I don't know who you have been talking to (and I'm sorry you've been given the run around) but being a believer for over 30 years I've NEVER talked that way.

EVERYONE has a belief in the BIBLE (Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth).

You can believe it IS the Inspired word of GOD.

You can believe it  MIGHT be the inspired word of GOD.

You can believe it's NOT the inspired word of GOD.

 (That's GOD giving US free choice).

MY belief has turned into Faith, and my FAITH tells me the BIBLE is true.

NO ONE can PROVE the BIBLE is true OR false,since to PROVE any type of science experiment one MUST start at the beginning.

I know of no one (on earth) that was here at the beginning of time. So no experiment can be proven!

 

 As far as the flood goes, you MIGHT want to check out the histories of most (if not all) nationalites  which in their past have a record of a flood in THEIR area!

Again I can't prove the flood happened but how can so many DIFFERENT people be wrong?

 WE (YOU & I) can argue back and forth the "proofs" we find in nature to "prove" our case, but as I've said earlier, I will continue to go by FAITH. Which has done me well for most of my life.

 

  Thank you for listening and GOD Bless,

    Mike

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Bible is the inspired word of God, why does it contain many false claims such as Noah and the Flood (which Jesus himself believed in)? I'm not going to read through all the pages of this topic, so if this subject has already been covered, sorry for repeating it. Any views would be most appreciated. Moreover, I'm extremely surprised at how many theists on here presuppose the existence of a god in the first place? What proof do they have. Because whenever I'm in an argument with a theist - especially when it comes to scripture - it usually turns out like this:

 

Me: How do you know the Bible is the inspired word of God?

Theist: Because the Bible tells us so.

Me: Why do you believe in the Bible?

Theist: The Bible is infallible (or, in extreme cases, "because the Bible is the inspired word of God").

Me: How do you know the Bible is infallible?

Theist: The Bible is the inspired word of God.

 

In other words, a circular argument.

 

 

I know Mike gave a wonderful post but I did not want you to think I ignored you since you quoted me directly.

 

I am curious though what you think are all the false claims.  There are many things in the Bible that can be referenced with historical books of the same time period.  So there are some things that can be proven to a certain degree.  Do we have first hand knowledge today?  No, but that is where faith comes in.  And like Mike says, we all have been given the choice to believe or not.

 

I would love to at any time have a discussion with you or anyone else.  I usually reserve the "because I said so" for my children so I would be providing a bit more to the discussion than that circular motion you described. 

 

God bless you and hope you are having a lovely day...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hot News:

 

Here in Finland, a gay couple has been send to do missionary work for the main church of Finland!!!

 

I repeat, a gay couple was blessed by the church of Finland and was sent to do missionary work abroad (probably in far east)

 

This is great, as when they teach the gospel of Jesus, they can also teach the folk that homosexuality is not a disease or sin.

 

Of course, fundamentalist clans of Finland are in uproar. In their opinion, anti-gay propaganda is a solid part of spreading the gospel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hot News:

 

Here in Finland, a gay couple has been send to do missionary work for the main church of Finland!!!

 

I repeat, a gay couple was blessed by the church of Finland and was sent to do missionary work abroad (probably in far east)

 

This is great, as when they teach the gospel of Jesus, they can also teach the folk that homosexuality is not a disease or sin.

 

Of course, fundamentalist clans of Finland are in uproar. In their opinion, anti-gay propaganda is a solid part of spreading the gospel.

 

Obviousy the main church of Finland does not understand the Bible!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, faith.

 

As for floods - they happen all the time, and in those days they were pretty scared as they couldn't explain them. So, they put them down to god, probably exaggerating the story in the process. Ergo, that the ice cores dating back 40,000 years show no changes in salinity or layering which would be expected from a worldwide flood is hardly surprising, nor is the zoogeographical finding that all the species in the world did not come from one point, namely the disembarking point in the Middle East in the myth. Finally, there was never a time on Earth when the human species was bottlenecked down to single-digit figures - the human population has stayed more or less steady, apart from a few catastrophes which left us with a population lower than 60,000 at one point - some grand design! As I said, Jesus said 'the Flood took them all away'. 

 

Historical evidence against the Exodus is also quite convincing, but I'll leave that for another day.

 

The Adam and Eve story is impossible due to the laws of biology - there was no first man or woman.

 

I understand it's faith, and it explains why you claim that we've been given a "free choice" whether to believe these things or not. But, again, that means that you're presupposing a god on faith, which is belief in the absence of evidence, so it personally doesn't work for me.

 

Thanks for the feedback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 @ VIDDY9,

First, let me say I'm sorry for any Speling Mistaks I make, as my computer has a virus and it's almost impossible to use spel chek.

 

 Now to business, in your post # 157, you say you are not going to read posts before yours.

That tells me (in my opinion) you aren't interested in what others had to say/have to say.

And I'm not one that likes to argue just for the sake of an argument. So If you just want to argue, I will not be helping you to argue. 

 

 As I've already said, When one look at/for the scientific "facts", you will find "proof" to support your theory.

 

 As for NEVER having the FIRST humans, then how did WE get here?

EVEN if you believe the theory of "The Goo, To The Zoo, To You" there Had at SOME point had to be the first 2 humans !!

 Or did we just turn from a Catapillar to a Butterfly?

Speaking of which, IF evolution HOW could THAT happen.

How can "trial & error" EVER produce a butterfly?

You would HAVE to get it right the FIRST time, because if it wasn't right it would not be able to reproduce.

  Thanks for listening,

I'm on my way to Church now.

 Have a nice day and GOD bless,

 Mike 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 @ VIDDY9,

First, let me say I'm sorry for any Speling Mistaks I make, as my computer has a virus and it's almost impossible to use spel chek.

 

 Now to business, in your post # 157, you say you are not going to read posts before yours.

That tells me (in my opinion) you aren't interested in what others had to say/have to say.

And I'm not one that likes to argue just for the sake of an argument. So If you just want to argue, I will not be helping you to argue. 

 

 As I've already said, When one look at/for the scientific "facts", you will find "proof" to support your theory.

 

 As for NEVER having the FIRST humans, then how did WE get here?

EVEN if you believe the theory of "The Goo, To The Zoo, To You" there Had at SOME point had to be the first 2 humans !!

 Or did we just turn from a Catapillar to a Butterfly?

Speaking of which, IF evolution HOW could THAT happen.

How can "trial & error" EVER produce a butterfly?

You would HAVE to get it right the FIRST time, because if it wasn't right it would not be able to reproduce.

  Thanks for listening,

I'm on my way to Church now.

 Have a nice day and GOD bless,

 Mike 

 

Ah, you seem to have misunderstood me. At the time of posting the message in which I said that I wasn't going to read all of the posts before mine, I didn't have much time on my hands and so couldn't see whether another freethinker, perhaps, had raised the question of Noah and the Flood. As I've said repeatedly, I'm more than happy to get feedback; in fact, I encourage it.

 

There is mountains of evidence to support the fact that humans came from less evolved animals. This goes all the way back until the universal common ancestor - the common ancestor that every single organism that has ever lived or is living has in common. Just to keep to the 'god' theme - over 99% of all species to have lived on this planet have gone extinct - some divine plan!

 

There was no point at which there were the first two humans, simply because every single living organism is of the same species as its parent(s). Change happens extremely gradually, and the terms that we humans use to describe living things, such as 'species' consequently are only effective on the large scale. By your logic, your grandmother, hypothetically, could have been a different species to you were there a "first" of every species.

 

I don't know what you mean by trial and error.

 

To conclude, as Sheldon once said - 'Evolution is a fact'.

 

May the stars bless you. After all, without supernovae, that is, stars which have exploded, there would not be the release of the heavier atoms required to create life. Indeed, the atoms in your left hand may have come from a different star to the atoms in your right hand. We're essentially stardust - forget Jesus, the stars died for us. It'd be nice for Raj to point this out in The Big Bang Theory, as it's very awe inspiring.

Edited by viddy9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, you seem to have misunderstood me. At the time of posting the message in which I said that I wasn't going to read all of the posts before mine, I didn't have much time on my hands and so couldn't see whether another freethinker, perhaps, had raised the question of Noah and the Flood. As I've said repeatedly, I'm more than happy to get feedback; in fact, I encourage it.

 

There is mountains of evidence to support the fact that humans came from less evolved animals. This goes all the way back until the universal common ancestor - the common ancestor that every single organism that has ever lived or is living has in common. Just to keep to the 'god' theme - over 99% of all species to have lived on this planet have gone extinct - some divine plan!

 

There was no point at which there were the first two humans, simply because every single living organism is of the same species as its parent(s). Change happens extremely gradually, and the terms that we humans use to describe living things, such as 'species' consequently are only effective on the large scale. By your logic, your grandmother, hypothetically, could have been a different species to you were there a "first" of every species.

 

I don't know what you mean by trial and error.

 

To conclude, as Sheldon once said - 'Evolution is a fact'.

 

May the stars bless you. After all, without supernovae, that is, stars which have exploded, there would not be the release of the heavier atoms required to create life. Indeed, the atoms in your left hand may have come from a different star to the atoms in your right hand. We're essentially stardust - forget Jesus, the stars died for us.

 

I'd like to weigh in: so God is dead and we are all left to ourselves :huh: (Nietzsche)

(I wonder if that hand that switched the light of the universe... is the same to switch it off)

Edited by wannamaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, you seem to have misunderstood me. At the time of posting the message in which I said that I wasn't going to read all of the posts before mine, I didn't have much time on my hands and so couldn't see whether another freethinker, perhaps, had raised the question of Noah and the Flood. As I've said repeatedly, I'm more than happy to get feedback; in fact, I encourage it.

 

There is mountains of evidence to support the fact that humans came from less evolved animals. This goes all the way back until the universal common ancestor - the common ancestor that every single organism that has ever lived or is living has in common. Just to keep to the 'god' theme - over 99% of all species to have lived on this planet have gone extinct - some divine plan!

 

There was no point at which there were the first two humans, simply because every single living organism is of the same species as its parent(s). Change happens extremely gradually, and the terms that we humans use to describe living things, such as 'species' consequently are only effective on the large scale. By your logic, your grandmother, hypothetically, could have been a different species to you were there a "first" of every species.

 

I don't know what you mean by trial and error.

 

To conclude, as Sheldon once said - 'Evolution is a fact'.

 

May the stars bless you. After all, without supernovae, that is, stars which have exploded, there would not be the release of the heavier atoms required to create life. Indeed, the atoms in your left hand may have come from a different star to the atoms in your right hand. We're essentially stardust - forget Jesus, the stars died for us. It'd be nice for Raj to point this out in The Big Bang Theory, as it's very awe inspiring.

 To start, Sheldon's Mom said "and that's your opinion".

 As to the "mountain of evidence" you speak of, where are ANY of the missing links that tie us to ANYTHING else !

 

 It was never in GOD'S plan for ANY to die.

However, God Didn't want little robots running around, so HE gave man and woman free will.

It was this free will of man and woman that brought death to this world.

 

 I don't see your logic about MY logic.

My logic is that I am related to Adam and Eve.

 

 You might call my "Trial and error", survival of the fittest.

 An example might be a pair of rabbits breeding in a snowy area.

White rabbits will survive better than any other color rabbit.

 So after many generations the genes of white rabbits will become the norm because of their DNA*.

 

WHAT??? I"M TALKING ABOUT BELIEVING IN EVOLUTION??? 

  YES !!!!

 

The example, I like to use is the 2 types of Finches found in/on the Galapagos Island and NO WHERE ELSE ON EARTH !

One type has a short wide beak and the other has a long narrow beak.

They both EVOLVED from different kinds of finches!

But the bottom line is they both came FROM FINCHES !!!

 

 If GOD didn't create Catapillars/Butterflies how does YOUR science explain the metaphorsis ?

 

 Are you saying it is more practical for suns, and planets, etc. to exist FOREVER, or that out of NOTHING came the Big Bang, than to say a CREATOR made everything?  

 

* BUT THEY ARE STILL RABBITS !

Edited by walnutcowboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  It was never in GOD'S plan for ANY to die.

However, God Didn't want little robots running around, so HE gave man and woman free will.

It was this free will of man and woman that brought death to this world.

 

 

I don't understand this statement. Every single living thing on this planet is born, grows, and dies. There's no evidence to suggest that it was ever otherwise.  If you're talking about "eternal" life, there's also no evidence to suggest that it exists... outside of the frightened minds of us mortals who don't want to face our own mortality, anyway.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand this statement. Every single living thing on this planet is born, grows, and dies. There's no evidence to suggest that it was ever otherwise.  If you're talking about "eternal" life, there's also no evidence to suggest that it exists... outside of the frightened minds of us mortals who don't want to face our own mortality, anyway.   

 

 

It's the fall of man in the Garden of Eden. 

 

About evidence of existence of things like the Garden of Eden or eternal life, there isn't any evidence to suggest that it doesn't exist regardless of anyone's state of mind. 

 

Edited to add:  I am curious that many say there is evidence of this or that not being true and whatnot but I don't see any sources cited.  It would be helpful to be able to see this evidence. 

Edited by Kasey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 If one were to WIKI the word "FAITH", one would find the word described as "having confidence of a person, thing or deity....

So EVERYONE has faith in SOMETHING !

Whether it's Science or GOD!

 Again EVERYONE believes in SOMETHING.

 

 As KASEY asks, where's your proof?

 

 If you were to GOGGLE "Human footprint in Dinosaur print, you will  Find "PROOF" both for and against it being the real thing.

Unless we can find someone who was there when it was created (which is impossible), neither side can "PROVE" how it was made.

 I think we can both agree that once upon a time there were Dinosaurs walking the earth.

If I could show you where to find writing about man actually seeing FIRST HAND Dinosaurs (thousands of years ago of course), would you believe that Dinosaurs could have been living during the time of man?

Could you consider that as proof?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 If one were to WIKI the word "FAITH", one would find the word described as "having confidence of a person, thing or deity....

So EVERYONE has faith in SOMETHING !

Whether it's Science or GOD!

 Again EVERYONE believes in SOMETHING.

 

 As KASEY asks, where's your proof?

 

 If you were to GOGGLE "Human footprint in Dinosaur print, you will  Find "PROOF" both for and against it being the real thing.

Unless we can find someone who was there when it was created (which is impossible), neither side can "PROVE" how it was made.

 I think we can both agree that once upon a time there were Dinosaurs walking the earth.

If I could show you where to find writing about man actually seeing FIRST HAND Dinosaurs (thousands of years ago of course), would you believe that Dinosaurs could have been living during the time of man?

Could you consider that as proof?

 

In that context, Sheldon's opinion was the correct one. Your assertions about the rabbits and the finches again stems from a misunderstanding of evolution by natural selection. Evolution is the gradual change in the characteristics of a species over a long period of time. Eventually, this does lead to speciation, but our definition of a species is itself flawed. Of course over ONE generation it's still going to be a rabbit, but eventually, somebody's great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandfather will be a different species to them. It's all about branching and common ancestry.

 

 

 

I only need to give one example to disprove your claim that the same species comes from the same species, and I'll give you the horse. We have a virtually complete evolutionary record for the horse with all of the links and intermediates (the creationist cry for the links and intermediates itself stems from a misunderstanding of evolution. [1]). We have the complete tree from E. angustidens to mesohippus to merychippus to pliohippus to the modern horse.[2] The National Museum of Natural History in Washington D.C. has some of these fossils - go and look at them for yourself. Remember that E. angustidens is a completely separate species from the modern horse e.ferus.

 

As for human evolution, we have a massive amount of fossils, ranging from Ardi to Lucy (an 'australopithecus' - the word features in the whole song of The Big Bang Theory) to those of homo habillis. The creationist demand for missing links is not only blatantly redundant (we have many missing links) but illogical - fossils only form in certain conditions anyway. Ultimately, even without the fossil record, evolution by natural selection would still be as strong as ever. Take a look at the human chromosome 2. Most hominids have 24 chromosomes, but humans have 23. Compare the extra chromosome that chimpanzees have to chromosome two, and you'll see that two of the chimpanzee's chromosomes have near-identical genetic information to that found in chromosome 2. The same is true of more distant gorilla.[3] This is exceptionally strong evidence for man's common descent with other organisms [4]. And I've not even mentioned the fact that every single living organism on the planet shares the same genetic information, again showing that we all came from a single ancestor. The tree created by this genome also perfectly matches the fossil evidence; the closer the fossils suggest we are with other animals, the more genetic similarity we have. For example, we share around 98.5% of DNA with the chimpanzee.[5]

 

Okay, I think that's evolution done for now. I'll get onto the Christian theology. First, you mentioned free will. How come we cannot break the laws of physics then? Why do we automatically fall asleep no matter how hard we try to stay awake. Is this not a violation of our free will. This suggests that we don't have free will, certainly not from a theological perspective. Nevertheless, even if we did, then why did god not give us limited free will. After all, Christian theology describes God as the creator. So, he created the laws of physics. Why did God not make the laws of physics stop us from committing atrocities such as the Holocaust? Even then, free will doesn't account for natural evils such as earthquakes and hurricanes. In response to this, I notice that some of you may use The Fall - Adam and Eve's original sin forced us to live in an imperfect world. However, now that I've given the evidence of evolution, its implication that the Garden of Eden story cannot be taken literally must be considered. As a result, the Christian explanation of The Fall is a wholly inadequate explanation for evil and suffering, as is Free Will, for reasons I've stated above.

 

P.S. The human footprints were a hoax, and most young-earth creationists have abandoned this utterly ridiculous claim. The "footprints" were actually metatarsal dinosaur tracks.

Sources and references(sorry if people reading my previous posts did not see them, I do usually try to include sources so that people can check the information for themselves):

[1] - See Richard Dawkins's book The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution

[2] - MacFadden, Bruce J (2003 digitization of 1999 reprint). Fossil Horses: Systematics, Paleobiology, and Evolution of the Family Equidae. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-47708-5.

[3] -  Yunis and Prakash; Prakash, O (1982). "The origin of man: a chromosomal pictorial legacy". Science 215 (4539): 1525–1530.

[4] - IJdo et al. (1991). "Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 88 (20): 9051–5.

[5] - Chen, F.C. & Li, W.H. (2001). "Genomic divergences between humans and other hominoids and the effective population size of the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees". Am J Hum Genet 68 (2): 444–456.

Edited by viddy9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it looks like I have a lot of reading to do.  Now I would though have to have faith that these scientific discoveries are truth right? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it looks like I have a lot of reading to do.  Now I would though have to have faith that these scientific discoveries are truth right? 

 

Not really, for anything to be accepted scientifically it must go through a rigorous peer review process and only then can it be published in the finest academic journals. Moreover, it's not as if science is one entity - it's a human enterprise designed to gain knowledge, enquire and explain reality. There's no conspiracy, as is evidenced by the fact that if the evidence does not support an explanation, the explanation is binned - there is no dogma that says that they have to keep to a starting conclusion and then build around it (like religion with its claim that god exists). Further evidence that there is no conspiracy or 'lies' is that scientists are all working against each other for prestige. You've seen it yourself on The Big Bang Theory. They're eager to disprove each other's theories and to be a scientist is to be a disciple of Socrates - always question everything - they want their theories to be incorrect so that it can lead to new discoveries. For example, when the Higgs Boson was discovered, many of them were sad because it basically confirmed that the Standard Model of Particle Physics is correct. As Professor Isaac Asimov said:

“The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the most discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but 'That's funny...”

 

And if one still doubts the truth of the evidence and observation, even after this, then I suppose someone like that is somebody who doesn't believe in truth at all.

Edited by viddy9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See I don't think there are any conspiracies in science.  I'm not denying something like the Big Bang Theory exists or existed might be better tense wise.  But does that mean I have to believe that there was just an explosion that poof happened?  Or was the Creator saying "let there be light"? 

 

It's not disproving science or not believing in truth.  It's saying that I don't believe science just happened.  I believe someone created it.  And that I don't think anyone can disprove...

Edited by Kasey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In that context, Sheldon's opinion was the correct one. Your assertions about the rabbits and the finches again stems from a misunderstanding of evolution by natural selection. Evolution is the gradual change in the characteristics of a species over a long period of time. Eventually, this does lead to speciation, but our definition of a species is itself flawed. Of course over ONE generation it's still going to be a rabbit, but eventually, somebody's great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandfather will be a different species to them. It's all about branching and common ancestry.

 

 

 

I only need to give one example to disprove your claim that the same species comes from the same species, and I'll give you the horse. We have a virtually complete evolutionary record for the horse with all of the links and intermediates (the creationist cry for the links and intermediates itself stems from a misunderstanding of evolution. [1]). We have the complete tree from E. angustidens to mesohippus to merychippus to pliohippus to the modern horse.[2] The National Museum of Natural History in Washington D.C. has some of these fossils - go and look at them for yourself. Remember that E. angustidens is a completely separate species from the modern horse e.ferus.

 

As for human evolution, we have a massive amount of fossils, ranging from Ardi to Lucy (an 'australopithecus' - the word features in the whole song of The Big Bang Theory) to those of homo habillis. The creationist demand for missing links is not only blatantly redundant (we have many missing links) but illogical - fossils only form in certain conditions anyway. Ultimately, even without the fossil record, evolution by natural selection would still be as strong as ever. Take a look at the human chromosome 2. Most hominids have 24 chromosomes, but humans have 23. Compare the extra chromosome that chimpanzees have to chromosome two, and you'll see that two of the chimpanzee's chromosomes have near-identical genetic information to that found in chromosome 2. The same is true of more distant gorilla.[3] This is exceptionally strong evidence for man's common descent with other organisms [4]. And I've not even mentioned the fact that every single living organism on the planet shares the same genetic information, again showing that we all came from a single ancestor. The tree created by this genome also perfectly matches the fossil evidence; the closer the fossils suggest we are with other animals, the more genetic similarity we have. For example, we share around 98.5% of DNA with the chimpanzee.[5]

 

Okay, I think that's evolution done for now. I'll get onto the Christian theology. First, you mentioned free will. How come we cannot break the laws of physics then? Why do we automatically fall asleep no matter how hard we try to stay awake. Is this not a violation of our free will. This suggests that we don't have free will, certainly not from a theological perspective. Nevertheless, even if we did, then why did god not give us limited free will. After all, Christian theology describes God as the creator. So, he created the laws of physics. Why did God not make the laws of physics stop us from committing atrocities such as the Holocaust? Even then, free will doesn't account for natural evils such as earthquakes and hurricanes. In response to this, I notice that some of you may use The Fall - Adam and Eve's original sin forced us to live in an imperfect world. However, now that I've given the evidence of evolution, its implication that the Garden of Eden story cannot be taken literally must be considered. As a result, the Christian explanation of The Fall is a wholly inadequate explanation for evil and suffering, as is Free Will, for reasons I've stated above.

 

P.S. The human footprints were a hoax, and most young-earth creationists have abandoned this utterly ridiculous claim. The "footprints" were actually metatarsal dinosaur tracks.

Sources and references(sorry if people reading my previous posts did not see them, I do usually try to include sources so that people can check the information for themselves):

[1] - See Richard Dawkins's book The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution

[2] - MacFadden, Bruce J (2003 digitization of 1999 reprint). Fossil Horses: Systematics, Paleobiology, and Evolution of the Family Equidae. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-47708-5.

[3] -  Yunis and Prakash; Prakash, O (1982). "The origin of man: a chromosomal pictorial legacy". Science 215 (4539): 1525–1530.

[4] - IJdo et al. (1991). "Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 88 (20): 9051–5.

[5] - Chen, F.C. & Li, W.H. (2001). "Genomic divergences between humans and other hominoids and the effective population size of the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees". Am J Hum Genet 68 (2): 444–456.

 According to the BIBLE, Noah brought 7 pairs of clean, and 1 pair of unclean animals!

The example I''m going to use is dogs.

Noah did NOT bring a pair of Chihuahua, a pair of Great Danes, a pair of Yorkies onto the Ark..

He only needed 1 pair of dogs.

And thru evolution the became different types of dogs, but they were/are STILL dogs !!!

 

 Mr. MacFadden tells the history of early horses to modern day horses. but they were/are STILL horses !!

In the PREVIEW page of Mr MacFadden's book he, HIMSELF states the fact of "FOSSIL HORSES", 

He was looking for horses and he FOUND horses!!!!

NOT ANY OTHER animal!!

 PS thank you Mr. MacFadden for proving me case!!!

 

 You bring up "lucy" as if "she" hasn't been "proved" to be a fake!

"WE" have a WHOLE history of the horse, which is great.

BUT for a WHOLE history of man you use the excuse of "fossils only form in certain conditions".

ALL types of early horse were formed in the "certain Conditions" but NOT man??? WHY/HOW COME !!

 

 You bring up the fact that our DNA is 98.5% the same as a Chimpanzee.

In the INTRODUCTION of Am Genet's book there is a difference, anywhere between .69% to 3.03% of difference depending on the gene used!

And Am Genet says that the Scientist's themselves can't agree (STILL in just the INTRODUCTION) !!

 

 @ VIDDY9, in your post 172, you state That only after "rigorous peer review" and "published in the finest academic journals", did you not?

Mr.MacFadden can be found in ANY good book store.

 How many papers have been "published in the final academic journals" been PROVED wrong later??

Scientists are CONSTANTLY being PROVEN wrong.

And THAT is what you believe?

That's your free will that allows you to do that. 

 

 On to Free Will.

If you WIKI FREE WILL it will tell you "...the ability to make choices unconstrained by CERTAIN factors...".

 We can, as you used in your example, TRY to stay awake, but CERTAIN factors interfere.

 

 Between the first draft and this final draft, you all added comments.

If some of my comments go back and forth,that is the reason. 

 

 Thank you for giving references as KASEY asked.

But please remember that ones opinion made in a book doesn't  NOT "prove" it's true.

You put your FAITH in the books you have noted, while I put my FAITH in  the BIBLE.

 Neither can be "PROVED", but that is where OUR faith comes in.

 

 OBTW I'm STILL waiting for how, through EVOLUTION, a Caterpillar can turn into a Butterfly !!

I've been asking for a while now!!

 If you can't answer (since there IS no answer) please tell me.

 

PLEASE NOTE, I've ADDED a bit since I first wrote this. 

If this is your first time reading this then disregard THIS message !

 

GOD Bless,

 Mike

Edited by walnutcowboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Earlier Paul was mentioned.

 

Personally I cannot take Pauls letter that seriously, because he keeps changing his mind all the time.

 

i mean in one letter he says one thing, then in the next letter he says something completely opposite.

 

And sometimes he changes his mind inside the same letter...

 

Confusing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.