Originally posted by clive59And why, Clive, is Faith pathetic?
Yeah exactly. These posts were almost verbatim some of those that were posted as pure ridicule. Faith is pathetic.
What path have you chosen?
There are only two.
Be careful of what you believe to be pathetic.
IT MAY COME TO HAUNT YOU IN THE END.
Originally posted by Nosraclol. Nice appeal to the consequences. You sure there aren't more than two paths? Seems like there might be, if the "Spirituality" section of my local Chapters is any indication.
And why, Clive, is Faith pathetic?
What path have you chosen?
There are only two.
Be careful of what you believe to be pathetic.
IT MAY COME TO HAUNT YOU IN THE END.
1 edit
Originally posted by NosracI've read both. I've also read other texts. Scientific texts with actual data and conclusions that refute Genesis as a literal account. Perhaps you should widen your reading.
AND THERE YOU HAVE IT FOLKS!
SCOTT IS INCAPLE OF LISTENING OR HEARING
THE TRUTH!
OR IS HE?
WELL, SCOTT, HAVE YOU READ GENESIS, YET?
WELL, SCOTT, HAVE YOU READ REVELATION, YET?
HE WHO HAS AN EAR LET HIM HEAR!
Originally posted by XanthosNZWhy I'm glad you said that!
I've read both. I've also read other texts. Scientific texts with actual data and conclusions that refute Genesis as a literal account. Perhaps you should widen your reading.
I've read a lot by Ken Ham on the subject.
Try going to:
http://www.answersingenesis.org
He is an authority on the book of Genesis.
Originally posted by NosracHere's just one discredit of something Ham said:
Why I'm glad you said that!
I've read a lot by Ken Ham on the subject.
Try going to:
http://www.answersingenesis.org
He is an authority on the book of Genesis.
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/ham_opals_henke.htm
He's not an authority on anything.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayWhether or not 'small changes' is debated or nor not, it is not evolution. Evolution by natural selection means that; you have to have differences between the 'parent' and 'child' organism, (obviously true, you don’t look identical to either of your parents, caused by DNA copying errors and recombination of different DNA (and more but I am keeping this simple)), these changes must have a mechanism to pass them on to the next generation, (DNA and RNA, genetic traits, also proven), and you need selection pressure i.e. increased (or decreased) chance of successful reproduction due to these small changes, (also witnessed and proven to happen many, many times). The exact mechanisms by which all these criteria function are very complex and diverse, but they do all occur. Given that evolution by natural selection does occur (incontrovertible fact) and that there is evidence in the fossil record for creatures slowly changing into different forms, and the genetic makeup of the different species is what you would expect from them having speciated from common ancestor’s at various points in history, and the fact that all the 'designs' of creatures are so similar, why for example are there no 6 or 8 legged mammals? They shouldn't be any harder to make than 4 legged ones. Why do we have the remains of a tail and the appendix (an organ that is completely useless)? Why do some snakes have the remains of legs? And why do dolphins and whales fins bone structure resemble a hand? If creatures were designed separately by a creator, then it can't have had much imagination, from mice, to rabbits, to elephants to humans we pretty much all have two lungs, one liver, two kidneys, 4 limbs and a varying size of tail, usually one heart (but pretty much all of the same design).... where are the tripods, where are the gryphons, the flying horses, the dragons, the centaurs? If this was all the work of a creator then they did a very poor job, and I want my money back.
How you view scripture being taken literally has nothing to do with
evolutionary ideas being in conflict with reality. It simply boils down
to how you define evoution, if you think it is small changes, no one
will debate that, if you think it is changes over time taking a some
what simple life form to the variety of complex ones we see today,
that is faith not science. As a faith it is just another other thing
people argue over.
Kelly
Evolutionary theory is science, and creatures either evolved, or were designed to be indistinguishable from ones that had, call Mr Occam and ask which to pick.
Originally posted by googlefudgeLet me know what ole Mr. Occam says okay, I'd like to hear his views
Whether or not 'small changes' is debated or nor not, it is not evolution. Evolution by natural selection means that; you have to have differences between the 'parent' and 'child' organism, (obviously true, you don’t look identical to either of your parents, caused by DNA copying errors and recombination of different DNA (and more but I am keeping this s ...[text shortened]... igned to be indistinguishable from ones that had, call Mr Occam and ask which to pick.
on quite a few things.
You and I agree evolution is a theory in science, no one is denying
that.
We disagree on what occured in the past, the reality of it all.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayMr Occam says you should choose the simplest explanation which fits all the facts. God is out of the picture then.
Let me know what ole Mr. Occam says okay, I'd like to hear his views
on quite a few things.
You and I agree evolution is a theory in science, no one is denying
that.
We disagree on what occured in the past, the reality of it all.
Kelly
Originally posted by scottishinnzSo, Scott, what do you believe happened in the past?
Mr Occam says you should choose the simplest explanation which fits all the facts. God is out of the picture then.
Monkies roamed the earth?
The earth was formed some trillion years ago?
Read Genesis.
Why?
Because it's the TRUTH.
Yes, I'm open minded.
Yes, I know y'all are evolutionists.
And if y'ar evolutionists that believe in science and other theories
since Darwin is just a theory.
Then why is it so hard for YOU to believe in God?
This I really would like to know.
No, not with your penchant for sarcasm either.
Originally posted by NosracThe Earth was created ~3.45 Billion Years ago. Not Trillions. The Universe is around 15 Billion years old.
So, Scott, what do you believe happened in the past?
Monkies roamed the earth?
The earth was formed some trillion years ago?
Read Genesis.
Why?
Because it's the TRUTH.
Yes, I'm open minded.
Yes, I know y'all are evolutionists.
And if y'ar evolutionists that believe in science and other theories
since Darwin is just a theory.
Then why is it so hard f ...[text shortened]... e in God?
This I really would like to know.
No, not with your penchant for sarcasm either.
And how can you claim something to be the TRUTH without factual basis and yet claim to be open-minded. Isn't saying that your answer is the only answer the exact opposite of open-minded?
Where in Genesis does it state that Genesis is an accurate and exact explanation for how the Earth came about? Jesus speaks in parables and examples, could Genesis be the same? Why not?
Darwin is not a theory. Charles Darwin was a person. If you want to believe he didn't exist then go ahead. However, the Theory of Evolution (which you actually meant) is a Scientific Theory. Basically anything in the field of science that is more complicated than a simple relationship (say Ohm's Law or similar) is a Theory. That doesn't mean it isn't backed by solid evidence. In fact it means the exact opposite. The Theory of Gravity is also just a (scientific) theory.
And I can't speak for scott but I can speak for myself. As said above I don't believe in God because it isn't logical to given that no proof exists. God may exist. And if he does good for him. But why should I worship something we are unsure exists?
Originally posted by scottishinnzReally? Why is that, because you don't believe in God? Personally,
Mr Occam says you should choose the simplest explanation which fits all the facts. God is out of the picture then.
I think God is the simplest explanation, your failure to accept that
doesn't change anything as far as reality is concern, it simply puts
limits your view of certain variables being in play or not.
Kelly
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
In this case what I meant was that given a choice between a world which was formed around 4.5 billion yrs ago (depending on when you start counting from, more on this if you want. 3.5 billion you start getting life so earth itself has to be older) by natural processes, developed life, which then evolved over around 3.5 billion years to form the creatures and planet we see today, or a world created by god (say 6000 yrs ago, seems a popular figure) which looks identical to one created 4.5 billion years ago, and in which life appears (and is carrying on) evolving, then the former and not the latter is the simpler. It is of course true that it is impossible to prove that the world was around 4.5 billion years ago and wasn't just made 6000 yrs ago to look 4.5 billion years old. However the same argument means it is impossible to prove the world wasn't created 5 minutes ago with 4.5 billion years history, (including your memories of 6 minutes ago). If you can remember back to my post about Cartesian devils then this is exactly what I was talking about, everything we know, believe, remember, and see around us is a nonsense if you allow for this sort of thing to be going on, everyone and everything you know or feel could be illusions, you either accept that the world is real, in which case science is the right way to explain stuff, or you allow such entities to exist in which case you can't prove or justify anything (including your morals) as anything or nothing could be real. As the world does appear to very accurately follow rules then I would again say which is more likely (plus easier to live with, and more useful, if physics doesn't work then non of our technology should work either), a world which runs on rules, or an illusion that looks like a world that runs on rules?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by XanthosNZIn science there are theories and hypotheses. A hypothesis is what you have when you look at a set of data (from experiments / observations) and say I can explain these results like this, my hypothesis matches all the available data I think this is how the system works. To become a theory that hypothesis has to survive very rigorous testing, if after years of exhaustive tests none of which it fails, and years of accurately predicting the results of tests (which no other hypothesis can replicate) then the hypothesis can graduate up to a theory. If you want to insult a scientific idea call it a hypothesis, calling it a theory is lending it credence.
The Earth was created ~3.45 Billion Years ago. Not Trillions. The Universe is around 15 Billion years old.
And how can you claim something to be the TRUTH without factual basis and yet claim to be open-minded. Isn't saying that your answer is the only answer the exact opposite of open-minded?
Where in Genesis does it state that Genesis is an accurate a ...[text shortened]... t. And if he does good for him. But why should I worship something we are unsure exists?
Oh and Evolution by natural selection, Very, Very definitely a theory.