Jump to content

To be named religious thread


lockmat

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 157
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Sound doctrine is biblical teaching.

But all claim their biblical teaching is sound doctrine, even when they contradict each other. That's what I meant by "subjective". Sound doctrine has to be more than just biblical teaching. It has to be the one you (subjectively) think is right. Game theory provides more rigor, if nothing else.

Being circumcised back then, if I remember correctly, was a sign to show you were a believer in Yaweh. It was something that set them apart from unbelievers.

In the context of the Epistle to Titus, it's read as Paul (or an imitator of Paul) telling Titus to rebuke those calling for circumcision of non-Jewish Christians. That was a big sticking point in the early church.

We have the Bible now. If anything someone wants to add is contradictory, then it's obvious it's not from God. He does not contradict himself.

So when people added things that were contradictory in the past it was from YHVH, but something is different now.

That's a whole different thread. And even if micro evolution was true, where did the first cell/whatever come from?

First, there's no "micro" or "macro" evolution. Second, if evolution is true, it doesn't matter where the first cell/whatever came from. But chances are the first cell/whatever evolved.

And where else in life do we see life coming from nothing?

Nowhere else in life have we seen life coming from nothing. Not even in life. Life came from something. But all evidence indicates that it evolved.

Evolution is mathematically impossible.

Really? I've read quite a bit of mathematics that shows how simple evolution really is. All you need is an imperfect replicator and some sort of survival filter, and evolution comes out the other side. If you've got some mathematical proof that evolution is impossible, I'll help you win a Nobel prize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, there's no "micro" or "macro" evolution. Second, if evolution is true, it doesn't matter where the first cell/whatever came from. But chances are the first cell/whatever evolved.

Incorrect... Creationist scientist seperated what is known as "Micro" (a term that evolutionary scientist coined in the 20's) into two terms "Macro" & "Micro" in order to help laymen understand two very different processes. Macro represents huge jumps in "Speciation", while Micro is (which is proven by the way) represents a completely different subject.

But all evidence indicates that it evolved.

No it doesn't... While it can spur good strong debate, there is a plethora of evidence to the contrary.

Really? I've read quite a bit of mathematics that shows how simple evolution really is. All you need is an imperfect replicator and some sort of survival filter, and evolution comes out the other side. If you've got some mathematical proof that evolution is impossible, I'll help you win a Nobel prize.

Like I mentioned to Niche, I believe he was saying that something had to make the something that made the something, otherwise where did it come from. I certainly don't think that his theory disproves evolution, but I agree with his point. It's simple, but makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have the Bible now. If anything someone wants to add is contradictory, then it's obvious it's not from God. He does not contradict himself.

Look, I respect your faith, but you're not going to convince anyone with logic that is so, well, illogical. That simply doesn't answer my question. God didn't write the books of the Bible in the first place. A person did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incorrect... Creationist scientist seperated what is known as "Micro" (a term that evolutionary scientist coined) into two terms "Macro" & "Micro". Macro represents huge jumps in "Speciation", while Micro is (which is proven by the way) represents a completely different subject.

And regular scientists don't separate them that way. Speciation occurs when evolution prevents the production of fertile offspring, and that's also been proven.

No it doesn't... While it can spur good strong debate, there is a plethora of evidence to the contrary.

Like what?

Like I mentioned to Niche, I believe he was saying that something had to make the something that made the something, otherwise where did it come from. I certainly don't think that his theory disproves evolution, but I agree with his point. It's simple, but makes sense.

Oh yes, something had to make something. But so far the only physical process we've seen that increases order is evolution. Therefore it's highly likely that the replicators that led to the first cell were the product of earlier replicators, about which we know very little. If you've got another process up your sleeve that might have produced the first cell, please share with the group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think his point was, where did the "single-celled organism" intially come from?

From the early Earth conditions that were being replicated in the lab. Amino acids, rarified atmosphere, and electrical activity, if I recall correctly.

EDIT: H2B beat me to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And regular scientists don't separate them that way. Speciation occurs when evolution prevents the production of fertile offspring, and that's also been proven.

Regular Scientist? How about we say "mainstream" scientist. The reason I say that is that I'm kind of a creationism vs evolution nut, and I read a lot of journals about the subject, and you might be suprised at the number of scientist that have moved toward creationism over the last 15 years. I'm not saying their moving to Christianity, but the science of creationism.

As far as speciation is concerned... I'm not sure what your talking about. The speciation I've been talking about is the process of formation of a new species from an existing one, and that has not been proven, in fact there's almost zero evidence of it, and that's being generous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are some good Christian folk:

http://www.signmovies.net/videos/signmovies/tgfi.html (these people are a piece of work)

"Thank God for IEDs"

"Repent or Perish"

"Rejoice when God shows his vengeance"

"It's all together appropriate that [uS military soldiers] have been blown to a 1000 pieces by the hand of God."

...and then they go off and quote the bible, perfectly interpreting it, to support their belief in God and Jesus Christ, our Savior.

Good, clean Baptist folk.

What a load of crap.

And then you have others that use the exact same text as these nut cases professing something different...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like what?

I gave an example about an hour ago, and it goes right along with my point about speciation. It's a simple one yet it's very difficult to argue from a Macro-evolutionary standpoint... Question: Where is the fossil record of giant leaps between species?

Now, that
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regular Scientist? How about we say "mainstream" scientist. The reason I say that is that I'm kind of a creationism vs evolution nut, and I read a lot of journals about the subject, and you might be suprised at the number of scientist that have moved toward creationism over the last 15 years. I'm not saying their moving to Christianity, but the science of creationism.

As far as speciation is concerned... I'm not sure what your talking about. The speciation I've been talking about is the process of formation of a new species from an existing one, and that has not been proven, in fact there's almost zero evidence of it, and that's being generous.

Wikipedia says otherwise, providing four different means by way of which speciation can occur without human intevention and has been observed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

It was mentioned on another thread that in contrast with Caucasians and Africans, Asians have a hard crusty grey kind of earwax. All three sub-species can still mate with one another. But clearly there are some adaptive traits that came along subsequent to migration/isolation of a genetic pool. (And clearly God did not create everyone in his own image because God's earwax can only be one color.) Is it not conceivable that at some point Asians and Caucasians/Africans, left to their own regions, would've adapted reproductive traits in such a way as not all of the groups could have mated with one another? And if they cannot mate, then wouldn't that make them different species?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regular Scientist? How about we say "mainstream" scientist. The reason I say that is that I'm kind of a creationism vs evolution nut, and I read a lot of journals about the subject, and you might be suprised at the number of scientist that have moved toward creationism over the last 15 years. I'm not saying their moving to Christianity, but the science of creationism.

I'll just say regular scientists, because prefixing "scientist" with an anti-scientific adjective seems contradictory.

As far as speciation is concerned... I'm not sure what your talking about.

I'm talking about the evolution of new species, i.e. in animals, they can't produce fertile offspring.

The speciation I've been talking about is the process of formation of a new species from an existing one, and that has not been proven, in fact there's almost zero evidence of it, and that's being generous.

See Evidence for Speciation.

There are no "giant leaps" between species. Variations are small, but they accumulate over time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear ya, but again, I think Lockmats point was... Where did the amino acids, etc come from?

So we're going to take this back to the big bang?

You know, when it ultimately comes down to it, I don't know or I am uncertain. That does absolutely nothing whatsoever to advance a religious argument, however. Not every mystery has to be assigned a solution. My perception of the world needs not be so orderly if orderly necessitates the inclusion of baseless fantasy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is the term creationism scientist a contradiction?

"Creationism" is a belief in a creator, something unproven, possibly unprovable, and certainly outside of scientific inquiry. Regular scientists don't give up and say "God did it". They say "I don't know, how could I find out?"

I hear ya, but again, I think Lockmats point was... Where did the amino acids, etc come from?

No one is sure. There are theories (like circularly polarized light in interstellar clouds), but little hard evidence. So far. How can we find out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is the term creationism scientist a contradiction? Or are you just trying to insult those of us who believe in creationism?

Not any more insulting than claiming Evolution is an impossibility to people who know better.

Ever watch The Naked Archeologist? I watched a few times, but I saw pretty quickly what the program was all about. Simcha Jacobovici would go around talking with others about events that seemed to fit all too nicely into

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because we are his creation. Since the fall of man, when sin entered the world, we became separated from him, both physically and spiritually (adam and eve were kicked out of the garden and no longer had fellowship[spent time with] with God)

Although he hates the sin, he still wants us redeemed back to him. He doesn't want his creation to suffer eternal death. That's the basic reason.

My question was vague, let me rephrase.

If the Christian God is real and He is powerful, why does He put His creation to suffer for not believing in him? Why does He do it in such a way that we have to believe Him or suffer the consequences?

If He is really powerful and He really cares about us, can He not eliminate the suffering, so that we can choose to believe in Him or not, without the consequences? Why does He feel the need create a punishment to those who do not believe in Him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wikipedia says otherwise, providing four different means by way of which speciation can occur without human intevention and has been observed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

It was mentioned on another thread that in contrast with Caucasians and Africans, Asians have a hard crusty grey kind of earwax. All three sub-species can still mate with one another. But clearly there are some adaptive traits that came along subsequent to migration/isolation of a genetic pool. (And clearly God did not create everyone in his own image because God's earwax can only be one color.) Is it not conceivable that at some point Asians and Caucasians/Africans, left to their own regions, would've adapted reproductive traits in such a way as not all of the groups could have mated with one another? And if they cannot mate, then wouldn't that make them different species?

From Websters....Speciation; the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution. In individual cases, it involves the splitting of a single evolutionary lineage into two or more genetically independent ones.

You are talking about a completely different evolution here. I'm talking about giant leaps in speciation (Macro-Evolution). We certainly know, and has been proven, that much smaller leaps like you've mentioned are true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See Evidence for Speciation.

There are no "giant leaps" between species. Variations are small, but they accumulate over time.

Have you done any research on the "Triassic" period? It is exactly what I'm refering to. And I know the argument that there were no giant leaps, however, by making that statement you have to eliminate the Triassic period from the equation. The belief of adaptive speciation (refering in this case to your point above) is not held by all secular scientist, in fact many argue Quantum evolution.

Not any more insulting than claiming Evolution is an impossibility to people who know better.

Your taking me out of context H2B. I never argued that evolution was impossible, it's not only possible, but is a fact. Of course your evolution and mine are two different things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ever watch The Naked Archeologist? I watched a few times, but I saw pretty quickly what the program was all about. Simcha Jacobovici would go around talking with others about events that seemed to fit all too nicely into
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you done any research on the "Triassic" period? It is exactly what I'm refering to. And I know the argument that there were no giant leaps, however, by making that statement you have to eliminate the Triassic period from the equation.

Why would I have to do that?

The belief of adaptive speciation (refering in this case to your point above) is not held by all secular scientist, in fact many argue Quantum evolution.

"Many"? I've only heard of one (the inventor of the term). Perhaps you mean punctuated evolution?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your taking me out of context H2B. I never argued that evolution was impossible, it's not only possible, but is a fact. Of course your evolution and mine are two different things.
Sorry, Gary, I wasn't clear. That clain was made, but it was not by you.

You have thrown out some terms I admit I am not all that familiar with, like macroevolution, microevolution and speciation. I know their meanings

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question was vague, let me rephrase.

If the Christian God is real and He is powerful, why does He put His creation to suffer for not believing in him? Why does He do it in such a way that we have to believe Him or suffer the consequences?

If He is really powerful and He really cares about us, can He not eliminate the suffering, so that we can choose to believe in Him or not, without the consequences? Why does He feel the need create a punishment to those who do not believe in Him?

And to make it even worse, he chooses to punish the very people he gave the intelligence and inquisitiveness to question their world, including his existence? Take to its logical extreme, He will only allow those ignorant enough to trust without question to join him in heaven? Does that not strike anyone as diabolical and narcissistic? Hardly worthy of worship?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would I have to do that?

Because it has everything to do with my point. There were huge changes in species (say from a lizard to a bird) from the beginning of the era to the end, changes that fly in the face of Macro-evolution. That's the concept of Quantam, Macro, evolution. Really you can call it what you want, but my point is that the Triassic period holds BIG problems secular scientists and micro-evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because it has everything to do with my point. There were huge changes in species (say from a lizard to a bird) from the beginning of the era to the end, changes that fly in the face of Macro-evolution. That's the concept of Quantam, Macro, evolution. Really you can call it what you want, but my point is that the Triassic period holds BIG problems secular scientists and micro-evolution.

The triassic period was about 52 million years long (and bird fossils don't appear for another 40 million years). I'm unaware of any speciation currently believed to have happened during the Triassic period that would need more than 52 million years to occur, so I don't see these big problems. Perhaps you could give an example?

I'm saying that when one argues secular evolution as a complete fact, they are going to have a very difficult time (and do) explaining away an issue that in many ways is crucial to their argument. In other words, if you argue that Darwinism has been proven as fact, you (not you H2B) are very wrong, and it's not difficult to dismantle. Understand that a lot of Darwins theory was genious in my opinion, however, he had some big wholes that are vital to the argument.

Such as?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys just leave this touchy subject alone and get back to your margarita or martini or weed or whatever gets you high.

CoolBuddy, you are certainly free to make that request. However, I will point out that this thread is under the "Religion" category in the "Way Off Topic" Section. Highly volatile religious topics are expected in this section. The "Way Off Topic" and "Religion" labels are intended to warn those who might be offended by these discussions to read at their own risk. Those who post are also expected to grow thicker skin in this section than in others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, I respect your faith, but you're not going to convince anyone with logic that is so, well, illogical. That simply doesn't answer my question. God didn't write the books of the Bible in the first place. A person did.

The Bible teaches that it's "God-breathed." God wrote it through men. When you're God, that's possible.

From the early Earth conditions that were being replicated in the lab. Amino acids, rarified atmosphere, and electrical activity, if I recall correctly.

EDIT: H2B beat me to it.

This is an assumption. Nobody there to see it and write it down. Also, evolution cannot be proven because it cannot be tested and verified in a lab. Evolution is a faith also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


All of the HAIF
None of the ads!
HAIF+
Just
$5!


×
×
  • Create New...