 |
I thought all information that contradicted the bible was put on earth by Satan. Like dinosaur bones and stories that tell the mostly The same story as Jesus but have a different character name like Krishna, Moses, Romulus, King Arthur, Perseus, Watu Gunung of Java, Heracles, Mohammad, Beowulf, Buddha, Zeus, Nyikang, a cult-hero of the Shiluk tribe of the Upper Nile, Samson, Sunjata, the Lion-King of Ancient Mali, Achilles, Odysseus, and Harry Potter all work of the Devil. S
These words are pretty big assumptions without knowing the type of person that I am. By the way that you wrote your words shows how narrow minded you are being by judging my personal character by one comment. Who do you think you are? All of this has been brought upon Man to himself my friend. Its Man's greed in the world that has caused the diseases of today, Greenhouse affect, plastics . Do you not think we can change the molecular structures that were put in place to be natural and clean, modify them (By Man) and accept the domino affect that it can cause damage to in an entire ecosystem? ON the contrary regarding how humans have adapted. It is my point exactly. Point be known, I read the other day that no one in the United states has died of natural causes since the late 1950s. What does that mean? Think about the largest money making companies in the world... Cigarette companies, Oil companies, and Pharmaceuticals. You don't think they manipulate our Governments to assure their stability whether people get hurt or sick? Don't kid yourself. Remember, safety books and Policies are normally written in Blood. If there were no consequences ($$Lawyers$$) then nothing would change. It's the $$ that motivate the changes, not the Companies hearts. You should know by now that justice is directly proportional to your pocket book... So to conclude, its not nature that is not perfect harmony. It is that Man has CREATED DISHARMONY. Consequences to actions my friend. We have created some of it for ourselves. Some of it we are casualties of war . In the end it all comes down to People as a common denominator.Quote:
Originally Posted by Onan
This is a useless discussion that has turned into a childish argument and I'll have no part in it. No one is attacking your view. You need to take a "chill pill".Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
Hmmmm.. no proof of evolution,, Tadpoles into Frogs,, Caterpillars into Moths,, hmmmmm
So true!Quote:
Originally Posted by Handyman2007
Faith is a powerful motivator!
I have studied about this off and on my entire life, you can't help but be curious about how big the gap is between these two opinions, Evolution or Creation?
From what I have found, there are a substantial group of individuals that put the age of earth between 6331 to 6578 years old, and within this theory, creation taking place between
4323 and 4570 BC.
In this time line, which seems to be very well researched, I found some of the most hard to believe information such as:
Seth was born when his father Adam was 130 years old.
Enosh was born when Seth was 105 years old.
It gets a little closer to believable with Enosh a dad at 90, Kenan a dad at 70, Mahalalel
A dad at 65, but then, Jared a dad at 162, or Methuselah a dad at 187? Really?
But even better yet, that Noah was 600 years old when the flood started, and 601 years old when it landed.
These figures were backed up with specific scripture passages in the bible.
I know I won't change anyone's mind who believes in the Bible 100% but it really is hard to accept that men were having babies at 187 years old, or, that a guy could fill an ark and sail for almost a year, at 600 years old?
Now you're just making yourself look foolish... grow up...Quote:
Originally Posted by Handyman2007
EXcuse me,, they are examples of biological evolution,, Doubt it? Check your high school biology courses. THis thread has gotten so outragious,,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Handyman2007
No that is not evolution, evolution tadpoles into trees, or perhaps that maple tree turning into a whale??
J. K. Rowling is Satan?? Do her editors know this? :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
Sheesh...
Actually Jillian, you do seem to get defensive. And your posts do sound like an attack on anyone who disagrees with your opinion. I've been at the receiving end of those attacks all too often.Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
You toned down your presentation a bit since PitbullRuby corrected you and others concerning your attitude that everyone must agree with you or they are trolls. But that didn't last very long. You soon returned to your old habits.
Lets go over your post in question:
Calling God an invisible sky wizard. You don't consider that demeaning and insulting to Christians and Jews? Sounds like an attack on all people who believe in God to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jillianleab
Insinuating that God is evil. Again, an attack on Christianity and Judaism.Quote:
the universe appeared, and he decided to not allow things to fall in place perfectly and in compete harmony for his own amusement?
Assasinating the Bible. Again an attack on Christians and Jews.Quote:
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?
Making fun of our belief in heaven and hell. More insults.Quote:
And when you die you go sit on a cloud or burn in a pit of fire?
No, you're pretty much insulting everything we believe and calling yourself the victim after we object to your insults.Quote:
I'm not asking you to believe in evolution
But what is your motivation for these insults. The only reason I can possibly see is because we don't agree with you. Because we believe in God and you don't, therefore you will insult everything we believe in an effort to coerce an agreement with you.
No you're not. You're trying to bully us into accepting your beliefs carte blanche. Sorry Toots. It ain't going to happen.Quote:
- 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.
You can only characterize your message that way if you skip you're entire diatribe about the invisible sky wizard.Quote:
My first post was telling buzzman to look up the definitions of theory, hypothesis and law, as they pertain to science.
Well, I believe I've had this discussion with you and I looked up the definitions as they pertain to science and those definitions support Buzzman and my contention that even in the scientific definitions "theories" are not always equivalent to "facts".Quote:
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).
Lets look at one explanation which seems to agree with you:
In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the theory of general relativity.
In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statements. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them.
According to the National Academy of Sciences,
Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.[1]
Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Note that this explanation never equates theory with fact even in scientific use. The closest it comes is to say:
Now, what would happen if the theory no longer explained natural phenomenon? It would be discarded.Quote:
It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition.
Now lets compare different scientific theories. The theory of gravity for instance, could, without my objecting be considered factual. I believe it very well explains and predicts natural phenomenon concerned with the attraction of bodies in space. We can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that things fall when dropped from a height. That is absolute truth.
However, the theory of evolution, although it explains many archaeological discoveries, must in the end be reduced to speculative science. There is no way to prove that dinosaurs came from bugs nor that whales came from dog like creatures. That is simply speculation. And until some sort of absolute proof can be obtained, it remains speculation.
Quote:
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.
It seems to me you need to study the difference between the idea that theory and fact do not stand necessarily in opposition and the statement that theory is absolute fact every time.
Problem is Jillian that you frequently jump to false conclusions. And when anyone disagrees with your false conclusions, you become defensive. Actually, even when you come up with healthy conclusions, if anyone disagrees, you become defensive and then offensive in that order. But no matter how many times you insinuate illogical ideas such as the one that in science theory is equivalent to fact, that doesn't make them true.Quote:
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?
Sincerely,
De Maria
Fetuses into humans...Quote:
Originally Posted by Handyman2007
Steel into autos, oil into gas, money into taxesQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
That's a little far fetched, even for you. But what about salt water amphibians, into fresh water ones, in say a few million years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
Nope, those are man made. Nice try.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
I'm sorry you think we're arguing, and I don't think you, or anyone else is attacking my view. I'm trying to encourage you to educate yourself about the scientific method so you will understand why evolution isn't "just a theory". If you have no interest in doing that, this conversation can't go anywhere, because it hinges on it. I've also turned your statements around on you so you can get some perspective from the other side and see that each argument you make can essentially be made in the same way from the other side, so that means (neither) argument "proves" anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzman
But that's fine, conversation over, I have no problem with that.
You are corect evolution is too far fetched to be a good theory, it is more of a fable or idea. But science has accepted it as a unproven theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
Sorry to disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
I find evolution much easier to believe than these statements:
Adam was 130 when Seth was born.
Methuselah was 187 when Lamech was born.
And, a 600 year old man was able to gather 2 of every species of animal, load them all onto an ark, and sail around for almost a year, and then run aground safely.
Side by side, evolution wins in my opinion.
Um... where did I say evolution is too far fetched to be a good theory?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
I said the arguments being presented (in this thread) aren't going to "prove" anything, but that's not the same as saying evolution is an unproven theory, or that it's a fable or idea.
Here's the thing (in a nut shell, and rather off topic, sorry); there is evidence for evolution. We have fossil records, we have observed evolution in nature (what many refer to as "micro evolution"), but it is true, we have not observed ape-creature turning into human. That part of the fossil record is still missing, but here's the thing, fossils aren't easy to come by, and they aren't made every time something dies. Just because we don't have that specific fossil, doesn't mean the whole theory is bunk. It's sort of like context clues when reading; you look at what you are given, and figure out what it all means. Now, for some people, they require more evidence than what we have - that's fine. If you won't believe in evolution until every last part of the chain is found, I'm OK with that. Some require that sort of proof, some require less. But just because some people require that as proof, doesn't mean it isn't a good theory, or that it's far fetched. Remember, there are a lot of people (I'm one of them) who won't believe in god unless he literally appears before me and says, "Believe, dang it!". That is the proof some require of god, and some require less.
And you could say all the same things about your point of view, and your reason for believing in god; you have evidence, you have observations, etc. That might equate proof to you, but not to someone else. Same thing on both sides.
And please also remember your ideas of biblical literalness, the creation of the universe, life after death, etc. sound just as far fetched to me as my ideas of the big bang theory, evolution, and nothingness sound to you. Our ideas are far fetched to one another, but the great thing is, we don't have to agree, we just have to respect the other's rights to believe what they want.
I love it when two sides of an argument mirror each other... couldn't that just as easily read: "You are correct, the bible is too far fetched to be a good theory. It is more of a fable or idea. But (religion) has accepted it as....fact???"Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
I tend to agree with some of the earlier posts in this thread. While some events described in the bible can be accounted for by archeological findings and cross references. The way the words were strung together and the message conveyed is completely dependent on the creativity of man and therefore subject to man's fallacy and tendency toward hubris. (How vain to claim that we as mankind are in God's image, talk about a superiority complex!) Fictional stories throughout time have made reference to actual historical events and people to create the idea of realism, to allow the reader to connect. I see the bible in that same aspect, as allegory.
And on the philo-funk-o-sophical side... if the more far fetched events in the bible happened and happened so frequently (when all these folks were supposed to have witnessed all of this) and God made his presence so obvious... why did it stop? You don't see those types of miracles going on today. Why not? (We could really use an abundance of fish and loaves in Darfur right now, we could use it in every town, in every nation :( ). Why all the mystery? Why not send a Bible 2.0 - The Later Years?
Some guy says he's hearing the voice of God now-a-days and he gets pumped full of drugs and put in a padded room or opens up a commune where you should really avoid the Kool-aid.
Why would God, if he is so important to us, let us "forget" him?. not call us once in a while?. take us bowling?. come over for Chinese? Is there a "No Contact" rule that God is imposing on us less-faithful, non-believers for some reason? What made us "break up" with God or vice versa, God break up with us? The "faithful" will no doubt say that He's there, you're just too blind to see... but if "He" is all that is proclaimed, again, why the mystery? Why the test of faith? Do you make your children prove that they love you before you bring them home from the hospital? If the leader of a group or organization turns his/her back on the group/organization/country, no longer hears it's concerns, no longer nurtures the overall good and provides for its well-being... the group eventually turns on that leader or otherwise regroups under alternate "management." Why are so many so surprised when that same concept would also apply so something like religion? When we can't get answers from God, but we can get answers through scientific discoveries, are you surprised when people lean toward the tangible?
Ok, that actually made me laugh out loud! Thanks! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Izannah
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:50 PM. |