 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6277
Location: Memphis
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2005 9:19 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| RevJP wrote: | | Evolution of man from ape has not been observed, nor repeated. |
Creation from nothing has not been observed, nor repeated, yet you would have us believe it to be scientific fact.
But isn't that an avoidance of the issue at hand? I have historical record documenting creation, TOE has a man's theory - which they want to be accepted as SCIENTIFIC fact in spite of the lack of proof required by the scientific method.
If I offer anything based on faith, I ask that those accept it on faith, I would require nothing more from the scientific community. If you want me to accept something as scientific fact, then have the scientific support for it. Assumption, speculation, inference and theory are not proof, nor evidence - they should present the ideas as such.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 7002
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 4:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
No. I would believe it as historical fact. I've never asked anyone else to accept it as anything else.
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mender
Little Guppy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005
Posts: 30
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 5:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | If science wants to state its religious beliefs as scientific fact it should then play by its own rules. |
How is evolution religious? And nothing in history is repeatable, but there has been indirect observation of evolution, such as fossils.
_________________
It is impossible to prove a negative. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 7002
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 5:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | How is evolution religious? |
I've been told that a belief of something which is not proven is a religious belief.
| Quote: | | but there has been indirect observation of evolution, such as fossils. |
How exactly are fossils an indirect observation of evolution? Without first the assumption of evolution fossils are simply a geological/biological record of life forms. It is the assumption that one developed into another which makes it accepted as indirect evidence.
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6277
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 1:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | I've been told that a belief of something which is not proven is a religious belief. |
You've been told wrong.
Belief in something which is not proven, yet maintaining your beliefs despite insurmountable evidence to the contrary; that's religion.
Religious belief: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny
Evolution is a theory. We know that there are definitely bits of it that we don't have right, simply because we don't have the information necessary. However, these bits are insignificant to the whole.
Look, read this. Evolution is not a religion, and you're just trying to sidetrack the matter at hand by saying so.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 7002
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 2:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Actually I am not trying to sidetrack anything. I simply replied to a post by Mender.
| Quote: | | Creation from nothing has not been observed, nor repeated, yet you would have us believe it to be scientific fact. |
When did I assert this? Putting words in my mouth to create false arguments?
BTW, these are my words: But isn't that an avoidance of the issue at hand? I have historical record documenting creation, TOE has a man's theory - which they want to be accepted as SCIENTIFIC fact in spite of the lack of proof required by the scientific method.
If I offer anything based on faith, I ask that those accept it on faith, I would require nothing more from the scientific community. If you want me to accept something as scientific fact, then have the scientific support for it. Assumption, speculation, inference and theory are not proof, nor evidence - they should present the ideas as such.
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6277
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 2:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
I apologize for posting in a topic which has been inactive for almost two months, but it was brought to my attention.
| RevJP wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | RevJP wrote: | | Evolution of man from ape has not been observed, nor repeated. |
Creation from nothing has not been observed, nor repeated, yet you would have us believe it to be scientific fact. |
When did I assert this? Putting words in my mouth to create false arguments? |
It's true, you said: | RevJP wrote: | | No. I would believe it as historical fact. I've never asked anyone else to accept it as anything else. |
If you offer creation purely as "historical fact," but unsupported by evidence, then you offer faith devoid of science, of reality. You argue that we should simply believe a record written by shepherds, passed down for generations, suffering through countless revisions and interpretations, over actual evidence. Evidence which is, by the way, wholly damning to the idea of creation as anything but contemporary fiction.
You ask for scientific support of reality. You are sitting in front of the greatest resource ever known to man, and ask us to prove to you what is real. Why should "we" cast our pearls of knowledge before the swine that will simply ignore it, blindly attack it, outright lie about it?
You offer naught but empty acceptance of a deity which you show no proof of, only threats and misdirection. Science offers understanding of the way the world, the galaxy, the universe, works. Science shows us that all things that exist can eventually be understood. Religion offers a deity which it defines as beyond understanding. Science can show us why things may have happened, and where they may happen again, and how to impede or promote them. Religion tells us what has happened, in spite of abounding evidence that it is wrong. Science shows us what we are capable of. Religion tells us we are fundamentally evil, the majority of us doomed to an eternity of punishment. Religion and the religious constantly shifts their goalposts in an attempt to get as many people as possible to believe in them.
Religion offers empty hope for life after death, as an opiate for the masses. The slave, toiling away at his duties, can settle his mind with the empty hope that afterwards, things will be better, instead of rising up and gaining his own freedom, his own life.
The bible offers conformity. The bible offers blind obedience to a higher power. The bible offers ignorance to the way things really are.
Is this what you truly want?
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 7002
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | You argue that we should simply believe a record written by shepherds, passed down for generations, suffering through countless revisions and interpretations, over actual evidence |
But alas! I've never argued that you, or anyone else, should believe anything! I've simply stated what I believe.
It is my understanding that you are the one here trying to convince others to believe in TOE, or at the least, to reject creationism.
As for 'actual evidence', as you put it; I have suggested that people look at 'actual evidence and derive their own conclusions as to what the 'evidence' points to, and that TOE is not a conclusion consistent with said evidence unless one begins their examination with the assumption of evolutionary origins. Simple fact of the matter is that the 'evidence' can point to creation as easily as it does evolution.
| Quote: | | You ask for scientific support of reality. You are sitting in front of the greatest resource ever known to man, and ask us to prove to you what is real. Why should "we" cast our pearls of knowledge before the swine that will simply ignore it, blindly attack it, outright lie about it? |
Now I am called a liar?
| Quote: | | You offer naught but empty acceptance of a deity which you show no proof of, only threats and misdirection. |
Who did I threaten and when? How did I misdirect anything? Strong accusations, bordering on a personal attack. I suggest you either support your libel, or button it up and play nice.
| Quote: | | Science offers understanding of the way the world, the galaxy, the universe, works. Science shows us that all things that exist can eventually be understood. Religion offers a deity which it defines as beyond understanding. Science can show us why things may have happened, and where they may happen again, and how to impede or promote them. |
To the best of our current knowledge, this is a true statement.
| Quote: | | Religion tells us what has happened, in spite of abounding evidence that it is wrong. |
To the extent that you are speaking of religion, I agree. There is abundant evidence biblically that aspects of religion are wrong.
| Quote: | | Science shows us what we are capable of. |
How so? At best science shows us our physical limitations. It is achievements beyond those measurable limitations which have baffled science thusfar, those are things attributed to spirit (things of faith, religion, and spirituality, not of science.)
| Quote: | | Religion tells us we are fundamentally evil, the majority of us doomed to an eternity of punishment. |
Again, as far as religion goes, you may be correct. However, biblically you are incorrect. Biblically we are in a state of seperation from God, and that seperation will continue through eternity unless something changes is. Which is what the Gospel of Christ is all about. Is it punishment to continue in the path to which one is born? It seems to me that offering someone an escape from their fate is salvation, not punishment.
Psa 91:14-16 Because he has given me his love, I will take him out of danger: I will put him in a place of honour, because he has kept my name in his heart. When his cry comes up to me, I will give him an answer: I will be with him in trouble; I will make him free from danger and give him honour. With long life will he be rewarded; and I will let him see my salvation.
| Quote: | | Religion and the religious constantly shifts their goalposts in an attempt to get as many people as possible to believe in them. |
I simply don't understand this statement at all. You would have to provide examples.
| Quote: | | The bible offers conformity. The bible offers blind obedience to a higher power. The bible offers ignorance to the way things really are. |
The bible offers eternal life in the Glory of God. It offers abundant joy and peace. It encourages one to explore the mysteries of the world and to develop fully one's mind (intellect), it condemns ignorance and conformity to the world and encourages one to stand, in faith, and be seperate from the world, while living in the world.
In essence, you have absolutely no clue as to what you are talking about.
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joman
Tiger
Joined: 07 Jun 2004
Posts: 816
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quotes by Ed.
| Quote: | The horse and the donkey. They are different species. And clearly the Bible considers them to be different kinds, since it refers to them separately and distinctly.
Yet they can breed to produce typically sterile offspring -- mules (or hinnies). |
Horses and donkeys are the same species. Mules are the end of the line proof that a species can only go so far in it’s ability to adapt (which is in the existing DNA) and no further. If evolution were true there wouldn’t be this Mendelian boundary.
| Quote: | | So you believe the horse and the donkey are considered the same KIND in the Bible? And that they are considered the same SPECIES today? |
Yes, very serious blow to evolution isn’t it!
| Quote: | | Actually, I thought I did comment on it. I'm talking about indirect observation. We accept things as true based on indirect observation all the time. |
Yes we do accept them on faith. And, well reasoned faith is rewarded by solid understanding of subtle and hidden things. But, if we use observation we can also be tricked so we must be careful. Evolutionism is based on shallow observation of facts that is guilefully used to invent imaginary past events that are contrary to the overwhelming majority of present date observable facts.
| Quote: | | What went into the ark? Two tigers? Two lions? One of each? And does this kind include the rest of genus Panthera, as well -- leopards, jaguars, cheetahs, etc.? |
Two of every kind. And, seven pairs of clean kinds. All variation seen today follows the Mendelian laws of genetics. The boundaries of reproduction are limits but, not exceedingly tight limits since God is a God of great creative diversity. Adaptation and variation isn’t macroevolutionary at all. The deceit of evolutionism lies in the guile that microevolution should be thought to be confused with macroevolution. Microevolution is evidenced by all but, no evidence of macroevolution exists in the fossil strata nor the present taxanomic world.
Joman. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joman
Tiger
Joined: 07 Jun 2004
Posts: 816
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 9:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quotes by Mender.
| Quote: | | Yes, gravity does effect light. It can stretch it, compress it, and bend it. And black holes do not explain why matter is not evenly distributed in space. Quantum jitters during the very early universe do, and these effects were magnified by gravity. Noone is saying the space between galaxies is filled with black holes, if it was we would not be able to see other galaxies. And you speak of lack of evidence? What about evidence for creation? I fail to see any. |
This is almost completely wrong and or misleading. Black holes are needed to define the structure of the universe because no known force exists but, gravity, that can be thought to shape galaxies. What the evolutionist doesn’t accdept is that the galaxies were formed by the hand of God not unknown random forces of nature. Gravity is the weakest force known and cannot overcome elecrtical, magnetic, atomic binding forces excetra. Gravity cannot form atoms nor distribute them in ordered structures. The solar system is designed by God to prove the evolutionist to be foolish in his thinking. Gravity cannot gather the asteroids nor the rings of Saturn into any sphere whatsoever but only traps them is a ever weakening hold.
| Quote: | | Van said, Human babies as they develop in the womb do not go through evolutionary phases that mark the past. |
Mender said about Van’s remark
| Quote: | | Darwin never claimed any such thing. |
Why bring Darwin up? Darwin wasn’t a scientist.
And, Darwin is an embarrasment to any one who reads him. He said many of the most stupid things imaginable
The forces of evolutionism still use the false idea refferred to by Van, to propagandize school children even after science has proven the theory false.
Joman. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joman
Tiger
Joined: 07 Jun 2004
Posts: 816
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 9:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quotes by FFT.
| Quote: | | Creation from nothing has not been observed, nor repeated, yet you would have us believe it to be scientific fact. |
The evidence demands it. Your evolutionism can only avoid the discussion about the origin of matter.
Anyway, I think your whole goal is to avoid God and science isn’t about to get in the way of your willful irrationalities.
| Quote: | | If I offer anything based on faith, I ask that those accept it on faith, I would require nothing more from the scientific community. If you want me to accept something as scientific fact, then have the scientific support for it. Assumption, speculation, inference and theory are not proof, nor evidence - they should present the ideas as such. |
There is blind faith. And yet, there is reasoned faith also. For example…it is reasonable to believe that complex structures with fit, form, function and beauty to boot, were designed by an intelligent person. To reason that random forces produce information is nonsense. You can watch the noise floor information presented to a viewer on a frequency spectrum analyzer till doomsday and you’ll never find any complex (nor simple for that matter) information arising out of it without the reasoned expectation that when information does arise it
always has an intelligent source. Of course this isn’t some theoretical meandering but, rather the way real people reason when confronted by facts.
Science must be able to produce a repeatable experiment. Therefore, since macroevolution has nothing to present as the repeatable, evidentiary result of scientific experiment it isn't scientific. And, the fossil record is without any intermediate transitional life forms that evidence the proposed process of macroevolution.
| Quote: | | Belief in something which is not proven, yet maintaining your beliefs despite insurmountable evidence to the contrary; that's religion. |
Then you shouldn’t have a problem providing a good example of macroevolution...but, you haven’t and you won’t cause....you can’t.
| Quote: | | If you offer creation purely as "historical fact," but unsupported by evidence, then you offer faith devoid of science, of reality. |
You don’t believe in historical facts that aren’t scientific yet, are nevertheless true, because they were witnessed?
Science must be experimentally repeatable. Give one example of a macroevolutionary experiment anyone can repeat. Or any evidence in history...in stone or otherwise.
| Quote: | | You ask for scientific support of reality. You are sitting in front of the greatest resource ever known to man, and ask us to prove to you what is real. Why should "we" cast our pearls of knowledge before the swine that will simply ignore it, blindly attack it, outright lie about it? |
Bull. You don’t have a pearl of knowledge to cast concerning macroevolution except the fact that it’s a theory. You left out the pearl about it being a poor one. You go on…and on…but never provide anything called evidence. You say I got it, everyone’s seen it. Well…I’m calling your bluff FFT…what evidence of macroevolution do you have?
| Quote: | | You offer naught but empty acceptance of a deity which you show no proof of, |
God isn’t available for scientific inquiry I’ll admit. However, so what? Science doesn’t answer any of the most important questions of life and shouldn’t be involved in things that it can’t render sensible nor sensable. If science were the end all then no one who lived before the rise of modern science understood anything important. Nonsense. You make to much of science. It’s beneath God to prove himself to you scientifically. It’s the other way around anyway, that is… that we are God’s experiment which proves he’s right about us. Take yourself for example…when you babble on and on about a God that you don’t believe exists you thereby prove that you actually believe he exists. But, you’ll deny this (predictably and irrationally) and go on talking about a nonexistent God. Jesus said we talk about what we know. You know there is a God and you can’t help but, talk incessently about him via the pretence of his non existence.
| Quote: | | Science offers understanding of the way the world, the galaxy, the universe, works. |
This is true! I’m amazed!
Note that it doesn’t nor can it offer proof of the way things were created.
| Quote: | | Science shows us that all things that exist can eventually be understood. |
Back to the nonsense! This is a faith statement and nothing more.
| Quote: | | Religion offers empty hope for life after death, as an opiate for the masses. |
Not according to the risen Savior, Jesus Christ.
Evolution offers no hope, no evidence of itself and is the opiate of ignorance commonly called stupidity.
Joman. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eddy Tiner
Ferret
Joined: 17 Dec 2003
Posts: 120
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| joman wrote: | Horses and donkeys are the same species...
...very serious blow to evolution isn’t it! |
Actually, Joman, I'm not sure I follow your premises, let alone your conclusion.
You are saying that horses and donkeys are the same species? Most references (in fact, ALL of them that I'm aware of) cite horses as being Equus caballus. Donkeys are the domesticated version of Equus hemionis.
What single species do you consider them to be? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6277
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| joman wrote: | | For example…it is reasonable to believe that complex structures with fit, form, function and beauty to boot, were designed by an intelligent person. |
No. It is reasonable to attempt to subject this idea to scientific procedure. It is not reasonable to simply believe it.
| joman wrote: | | Therefore, since macroevolution has nothing to present as the repeatable, evidentiary result of scientific experiment it isn't scientific. |
Please, think about what it is you're saying. Consider the possibility that you may be mistaken, and consider this: why would "macroevolution" be repeatable? By definition, it takes an amazing amount of time, and it wouldn't even necessarily have the same results.
| joman wrote: | | And, the fossil record is without any intermediate transitional life forms that evidence the proposed process of macroevolution. |
Read this. The constant claim that there aren't transitional fossils is utterly false.
| joman wrote: | | Then you shouldn’t have a problem providing a good example of macroevolution...but, you haven’t and you won’t cause....you can’t. |
Okay: Check Here
From here, I suggest you all read it.
| Quote: | | According to Douglas Futuyma, speciation and thus macroevolution was already observed by Dobzhansky and Pavlovyks (Dobzhansky, Pavlovyks, 1971, Nature 23, 1971, 289-292) in laboratory on the fly species Drosophila paulistorum. A strain which was isolated for several years in the laboratory could no longer interbreed with other strains of Drosophila paulistorum. |
From here.
There aren't any barriers to prevent "microevolution" from becoming "macroevolution" except time. The Theory of Evolution explains atavisms. Does ID?
| joman wrote: | | You don’t believe in historical facts that aren’t scientific yet, are nevertheless true, because they were witnessed? |
Witnessing an event does not mean it actually happened.
| joman wrote: | | Science must be experimentally repeatable. Give one example of a macroevolutionary experiment anyone can repeat. |
Isn't possible by definition.
| joman wrote: | | Or any evidence in history...in stone or otherwise. |
There's plenty. 
| joman wrote: | | If science were the end all then no one who lived before the rise of modern science understood anything important. Nonsense. |
Indeed. And no one's saying that it is.
| joman wrote: | | It’s beneath God to prove himself to you scientifically. |
It is beneath me to believe in him and worship him.
| joman wrote: | | Take yourself for example…when you babble on and on about a God that you don’t believe exists you thereby prove that you actually believe he exists. But, you’ll deny this (predictably and irrationally) |
Why does it seem like all of you who argue against atheism fall back on "you just hate god!?" You're quite plainly wrong. Why would I hate a being that I don't believe exists? That's like hating Medusa for turning all those people into stone, or hating Loki for tricking Thor all the time. IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. While I am no doubt predictably refuting your argument, that doesn't make me wrong. And my arguments are quite rational; I'd like to see you show otherwise.
| joman wrote: | | Jesus said we talk about what we know. You know there is a God and you can’t help but, talk incessently about him via the pretence of his non existence. |
Funny, that. I am talking about what I know. I know that gods are a creation of humanity. Next.
| joman wrote: | | Note that it doesn’t nor can it offer proof of the way things were created. |
Because science doesn't work in proofs, it works in disproofs. It is also impossible to "prove" that something happened a certain way, but it is, however, possible to show the most likely origin.
| joman wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | Science shows us that all things that exist can eventually be understood. |
Back to the nonsense! This is a faith statement and nothing more. |
Oh yeah? Why?
| joman wrote: | | Not according to the risen Savior, Jesus Christ. |
Gee, really? I bet Christianity would have worked real well if people had been up front about their intentions. 
| joman wrote: | | Evolution offers no hope |
It's science, not philosophy. It's not supposed to offer hope, only truth. Does the theory of gravity offer hope?
| joman wrote: | | no evidence of itself |
Plenty, you just insist on denying it.
| joman wrote: | | is the opiate of ignorance commonly called stupidity. |
Oh really? Got any evidence for this, besides "only stupid people would deny God!!!!"
| Eddy Tiner wrote: | | What single species do you consider them to be? |
Well, now he's speaking of "kinds."
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ekspiulo
Ferret
Joined: 14 May 2005
Posts: 123
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| joman wrote: |
| FFT wrote: | | Religion offers empty hope for life after death, as an opiate for the masses. |
Not according to the risen Savior, Jesus Christ. |
Well it is according to some leprechauns.
Apeal to authority is a logical fallacy.
Thanks for your time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joman
Tiger
Joined: 07 Jun 2004
Posts: 816
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ed,
joman wrote:
Horses and donkeys are the same species...
...very serious blow to evolution isn’t it!
Actually, Joman, I'm not sure I follow your premises, let alone your conclusion.
You are saying that horses and donkeys are the same species? Most references (in fact, ALL of them that I'm aware of) cite horses as being Equus caballus. Donkeys are the domesticated version of Equus hemionis.
The definition I'm using is the biblical one. In the Bible we are told that kinds reproduce according to kind. If the Bible weren't true on this point then macroevolution could prove the Bible wrong by proving that reproduction can occur outside species/kinds. But, it cannot. At best evolutionists use microevolution to extrapolate the far fetched hope that one day a macroevolutionary event will occur.
JOman. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
