 |
All I'm saying is if you really want to get technical about this... Neither Evolution OR Creation can be supported properly if you do your research... Carbon dating is not accurate and has many holes. And if people were truly scientific, they would acknowledge this...Quote:
Originally Posted by Onan
Pardon me... <Correction> "More unbelievable than Creation", was what I meant to say.
Correction<"More unbelievable than Creation", is what I meant to say">Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzman
And also, if Biologists jumped off a Bridge, would you jump too? Sorry to be blunt, but you have to test everything for yourself. That is my point. Just because he is a Biologist does not make him a "Self thinker". Media/Government rule a lot in our lives today. If we raise our kids to believe that everything is figured out for them, they will cease to think for themselves. Our society today is already proving that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Onan
This is an oxymoron in itself, because Science today seems to be finding ways to back its beliefs on Evolution "Non-Scientifically". Just by teaching that Evolution is fact is going against every rule they stand for, if they're true intention is to "DISPROVE". The "big Bang Theory" CANNOT be "PROVEN" any more than Creation. If people actually think about this and open their eyes, they would acknowledge this. In my mind, it is a battle of faith EITHER WAY you look at it. Except my faith involves a Savior and a Hope for the future. And I agree with your concept of making people see things that can never be made to be seen. Some people choose to see what they want to.Quote:
Originally Posted by KalFour
Complete harmony?Quote:
So you are saying that you believe in a Big Bang that apparently happened billions of years ago and allowed everything to perfectly fall in place in complete harmony.
Are you kidding?
If things fell into complete harmony humans wouldn't have struggled for centuries just to live on this highly unstable planet. Floods, fires, earthquakes, blizzards, droughts, and active volcanos still make it hard today. Have humans adapted? Of course we have. It's been long and tough on us and even close to not being during the last mini ice age, when humans almost didn't make it. I just don't get how people have the audacity to claim perfectness when it's been nothing of the sort. I would love to see just how perfect you thought the earth was before we harnessed the power of fire and started cooking our food. That's the problem with people today, we don't ever think about how things were for early humans. We think because we have it easy today it was always that way.
Ohhhhhhhhhh I seeQuote:
Originally Posted by buzzman
We shouldn't take the word of professionals who are actually out there doing tests, searching for answers, and finding proof of what they say over someone toting around a book that was written by uneducated heathens thousands of years ago. I get it, forget using our brain, what the hell do we need that for? We just need to pick up the Bible or listen to our preachers.
I don't have to test anything. I have read both sides and have used my own brain to tell me what is believable and what is not. I know the Bible is not factual because it does not comply with history in so many parts of it. I just showed a few posts ago an example of this and it was completely ignored. So before you go and accuse me of not doing homework I suggest you go back to that post read it, and do some homework of your own.
So you are saying you believe an invisible sky wizard pointed his finger and poof! The universe appeared, and he decided to not allow things to fall in place perfectly and in compete harmony for his own amusement? Good and evil are dictated by the sky wizard and the underground wizard (which the sky wizard allows to exist) and a book full of ambiguity that man edited? And when you die you go sit on a cloud or burn in a pit of fire? I'm not asking you to believe in evolution - I'm asking you look up the definitions of theory, hypothesis and law, and to study and comprehend the scientific method before you go spouting off about deception.Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzman
We do agree on that!Quote:
If we raise our kids to believe that everything is figured out for them, they will cease to think for themselves.
This is your point of view and that is fine. No one is trying to make you see anything, but you sure seem to be trying to push yourself and you're views. And they say that Christians push their views. Quite the contradiction don't you think? Believe what you want, you're going to no matter any one says to you... you're missing the whole point of what I'm trying to say because you have told yourself to believe one thing. Try to calm down cowboy...Quote:
Originally Posted by Onan
Why is everyone getting so defensive? I'm simply stating it takes just as much faith OR more to believe in Evolution. Believe what you want! We're just discussing, which is what this is all about.Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
I know they attack with terms like "sky wizzard" when they have no real defense. The issue is of course, I have always said I could not understand how anyone can beelive the fairly tale of some mysterious energy bolt hitting some pool of some substance and poof, there was life.Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzman
And that life had some product they could eat ( live on)
Then somehow that one little spark of life mutated and from that all sea life, all animal life and all trees, grass and flowers all came from that one living cell. To me you got to be smoking some pretty good stuff to even dream up that, and more to accept that as a possible idea.
I have enjoyed reading this thread since it started.
Normally, I keep to myself when it comes to this subject.
I have just one question and would be interested in everyone's opinion on it.
If we believe the Bible, our Earth would be about 6,000 years old, give or take a few hundred years.
How do you explain scientific evidence that our Earth is more like 4.5 Billion years old?
Yes, we do. We know that the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Two of these people are Apostles of Jesus Christ who walked with him, St. Matthew and St. John.Quote:
Originally Posted by Onan
St. Mark is a disciple of Jesus Christ who also doubled as St. Peter's secretary. In fact, the Gospel according to St. Mark could easily be called, the Gospel according to St. Peter as transcribed by St. Mark.
St. Luke is another disciple of Jesus Christ who walked with the Lord after His resurrection. His Gospel is a compilation of information which the good physician gathered from those who had walked with Jesus Christ from the beginning.
This information has been known for 2000 years. It is only recently that skeptics have begun to claim that the authors of the Gospels were not known.
And those Gospels were rejected by people who were aware that they weren't written by anyone who walked with Christ.Quote:
and second there are well over 80 other gosples written that tells other stories from supposed eyewitnesses.
The precise criterion used to reject those pseudo-gospels from the authentic gospels was whether they were written by known Apostles and Disciples of Jesus Christ. Since they could not be proved to be written by known acquaintances of Jesus Christ, they were rejected as worthy to be included in Scripture.
No.Quote:
Are you kidding me?
You have not accepted the evidence which we have found. Besides the Gospels there is the existence of a Church which has stood for 2000 years teaching what Jesus Christ instructed. There is also the empty tomb, the Shroud of Turin, the headpiece which can all be traced to a person crucified exactly as depicted by the four Gospels. There are the writings of other historians, the writings in the pseudo-gospels and other apocrypha and many other sources of contemporaneous information.Quote:
We have dug up Egyptian kings that at one time were thought of as just legend, but we have found no proof at all of a demi God who has once walked the earth.
No it doesn't. Precisely because Zeus' life can't be verified independently nor are there writing which can be verified to be written by his contemporaries nor by eyewitnesses. All evidence points to the fact that Zeus' life is a myth.Quote:
Hell there is more written about Zeus than there is of Jesus, does that make it proof that Zeus was a real being?
Eyewitness testimony is evidence acceptable in a court of law.Quote:
Exactly what is this evidence? Where is this evidence?
Eyewitness testimony which is verified by several witnesses is a very strong form of evidence.
Architectural evidence is very powerful evidence in that regard as well.
Testimony by other contemporaries which are not eyewitnesses but which are familiar with the history is also acceptable.
No it isn't. Your spin on history simply tries to get around the facts. But it is your spin on history which is wrong.Quote:
Again this is false. An example of not passing every test.
Yes, there was. For one, we don't know the precise date of Jesus birth. Nor the precise date of King Herod's death. There is a four year span within which Jesus may have been born and a ten year span within which King Herod may have died.Quote:
The NT claims that at the time Jesus was born,
Herod was king of Judea (Luke 1:5)
Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2) and
Caesar Augustus ruled Rome (Luke 2:1)
Well,, there was never a time when these three spans overlapped.
A date of 8 B.C. for Herod's death gives us a date of 43 B.C. for the capture of Jerusalem by Herod. Again, this date makes sense in conjunction with the earlier date for the death of Julius Caesar in 49 B.C.
The Chronology of Herod the great's Reign
1 B. C. Herod died
See table
"When he had done those things, he died, the fifth day after he had caused Antipater to be slain; having reigned, since he procured Antigonus to be slain, thirty-four years; but since he had been declared king by the Romans, thirty-seven."
From the above chart and from this statement above by Josephus, it appears clear to me that Herod the Great died in 1 B. C.
The Date of Herod
Therefore determining the date of Herod's death is anything but an exact science. And since there is no definitive proof that St. Luke is wrong, then St. Luke's statement stands.
No. This is the spin you put on history because you wish to disprove something which you refuse to believe. At the very best, you can find no evidence outside of Scripture to disprove Scripture. Therefore you stretch the evidence to prove what you want to prove.Quote:
This is what is learned with history and what would be known by eawoodall if he really knew history as he claims to.
Nothing was overlooked. You have simply clung your hopes to speculative history which proves nothing. The evidence provided by Scripture stands since there is no evidence which disproves it.Quote:
Something else that should be pointed out here is the decree of herod to have all males under 2 or at birth to be killed is a work of fiction as well. No where outside the NT is this story mentioned. Even Josephus Flavius, a renowned Jewish historian, who chronicled events during that very period in history, makes no mention of any such decree by Herod, much less any actual killings.
History records that Herod was hated during his reign, and many far less evil acts that Herod committed were carefully recorded in several historical sources. An act this evil and of this magnitude would never have been left out of any account in which Herod was involved.
If that wasn't convincing enough, According to Luke Herod was dead before Jesus was even born.
So during these "tests" how was this overlooked??
Let me explain further. Your interpretation of history neglects the fact that there were many Herods. Not just one.
Herod was king of Judea (Luke 1:5)
Search wikipedia under the term "King Herod" brings up this information:
* Herod the Great (c. 74-4 BC), king of Judea who reconstructed the Second Temple in Jerusalem and was described in the Gospel of Matthew as ordering the "Massacre of the Innocents"
* Herod Archelaus (23 BC-c. AD 18), ethnarch of Samaria, Judea, and Idumea
* Herod Antipas (20 BC-c. AD 40), tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea, who was described in the New Testament as ordering John the Baptist's death and as mocking Jesus
* Herod Agrippa I (c. 10 BC-AD 44), king of Judea, called "Herod" in the Acts of the Apostles
* Herod Philip I, father of Salome
* Herod Philip II (4 BC-AD 34), tetrarch of Ituraea and Trachonitis
* Herod of Chalcis, also known as Herod III, king of Chalcis (AD 41-48)
* Herod Agrippa II (AD 27-100), tetrarch of Chalcis who was described in Acts of the Apostles as "King Agrippa" before whom Paul of Tarsus defended himself
Herod - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Your interpretation of history also neglects the fact that the birth and death of all of those Herods is an estimate. There is no way to ascertain the exact date of birth or death of any of them
Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2) and
And you also neglect the fact that Quirinus was tetrarch twice:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.html
As for the killing of the innocents.
Macrobius
In the fourth century, the Roman philosopher Ambrosius Theodosius Macrobius gave the following comment in his Saturnalia:
When Augustus heard that Herod king of the Jews had ordered all the boys in Syria under the age of two years to be put to death and that the king's son was among those killed, he said, "I'd rather be Herod's sow than Herod’s son." ― Macrobius, The Saturnalia, trans. Percival Davies (New York 1969), 171.
And Josephus gave the direct impression that Herod was certainly capable of such atrocities:
Josephus records several examples of Herod’s willingness to commit such acts to protect his power against perceived threats, but suggests that not all such acts were recorded, as he summarizes that Herod "never stopped avenging and punishing every day those who had chosen to be of the party of his enemies."[10] "Such a massacre," Francis Wright Beare observes, "is indeed quite in keeping with the character of Herod, who did not hesitate to put to death any who might be a threat to his power."[11]
Caesar Augustus ruled Rome (Luke 2:1)
As mentioned above, Macrobius acknowledged that Caesar Augustus himself was appalled at Herod killing his own sons with the innocents.
Sincerely,
De Maria
De Maira, I'm impressed by the amount of time and research that went into that post!
You must have been typing it while I was posting my question since I didn't get quoted?
Would you have an answer for me as well?
It depends on how you read the Bible. If you prefer to read the Bible as saying the earth is 6000 years old, then you need to prove that statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by progunr
However, as Catholics we don't believe that faith contradicts reason. We believe the Bible and authentic science (as opposed to speculative science) are true.
Evidence for Evolution and Old Earth, A Catholic Perspective
Sincerely,
De Maria
I've been answering this type of question for about ten years. If I still had my old PC, which had all my information archived, I could have posted the information even more quickly.Quote:
Originally Posted by progunr
However, I've lost several pc's to viruses since then. I no longer try to keep the info on my hard drive since I'm so often disappointed when they crash and burn.
Thanks for the input.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Yes, there are many issues to the age of the earth, first even if we follow creation, we have no idea of how many years Adam was in Eden, one year or 10 million years before the fall.
Also one has to look into if the bibical "day" was a day or a million years, since this was given to man by God himself God would not have been able to fully explain to man how it was all done.
I did not attack, nor did I get defensive. My first post was telling buzzman to look up the definitions of theory, hypothesis and law, as they pertain to science. Buzzman is the one who dragged the big bang theory into the equation and attacked the belief in it. My post essentially repeated what he said from the other side of the argument, and reiterated what I originally instructed him to do (look up definitions).
So please, buzzman, don't patronize me with this "defensive" and "we're just discussing" stuff. Look up the definitions, read about the scientific method, and once you understand the difference between a scientific theory and a theory in common use, maybe we can discuss this intelligently. But if you will never bother to learn about the scientific method there is no way to discuss this with you, because you will always think it is "just a theory". Once you understand these things, you will be able to understand it does not take "faith" to believe in evolution.
And Chuck, just as you don't understand how someone can believe in the scenario you laid out, non-theists don't understand how you believe in the scenario I laid out. What's that? The scenario I laid out isn't detailed and doesn't depict all the subtleties of your faith? Golly... the scenario you laid out doesn't even come close to summing up evolution in a nut shell. Imagine that... Shall I re-phrase what you said from the other side of the argument and see if it makes sense then?
Arguing about the Bible makes as much sense as arguing whether water is wet. It is a no win situation... the believers will die trying to make anyone believe. It's been going on for thousands of years. If you take a news story and let a thousand people read it,, you will get one thousands translations of that story.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:04 AM. |