Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Origins is NOT part of the Science of Evolution. Neither is the Big Bang. All of that is off topic in a thread about "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures"
Ya that is what they would have you believe; yet if the big bang was proven they would all jump on board saying it is a part of evolution as it is the cause to the effect of evolution. You can't have one without the other. no cause, no effect. Therefore if evolution is true it simply must have a cause.
Natural selection only "cares" about one thing: what results in overall survival of all species members long enough to reproduce. It will tolerate a small percentage of a population being discouraged from reproducing, yet not prevented from doing so. It's not a blueprint-driven process, it's an outcome-driven process. To the extend a small homosexual component truly drives down reproduction rates one imagines it might be eventually selected out. My guess is that it doesn't have enough of an impact to matter. One thing is certain-- the presence of a homosexual cohort by itself is no (dis)proof of the ToE.
So in effect you are saying the homosexual gene hung around for ages doing nothing until it was time to use it. But is that not against natural selection toward the reproduction of offspring? So what it does show is that the gene should have been discarded long ago according to natural selection.
Quote:
But MesaGuy is correct -- this has nothing to do with how on earth one would "err" by not being aware of and obeying the scriptures, which is little more than bald truth assertions with no substantiation whatsoever. As opposed to critical review of actual facts and experienced outcomes to try to understand real rather than desired or imagined patterns.
Yes it is off topic and is why I told HD to start another thread if he wanted to get into this.
Quote:
The scriptures have NEVER been a source of accurate information about reality.
Tell that to the archaeologist, they would tell you the scripture are very accurate.
Quote:
They have never corrected, much less supplanted, scientific endeavor.
Why should they? Science will only prove the accuracy of scripture, eventually.
Quote:
Religious explanations and predictions have a long track record of steering people wrong; scientific explanations and predictions have a long track record of success and we are, just by reading this post, using one of the countless facets of applied science. Religion did not give us the ability to inconvenience electrons and convey written messages therewith. Science did.
In fact, take a religious person of the year 1500 and show them someone typing a message on this forum and they'd try to burn that person as a witch.
The scriptures actually promote scientific study Mordant. Not only do they promote scientific study they tell us what we will find via scientific study long before man could even imagine such an outcome.
Example: The universe is made up of time, space and matter.
In the beginning (time) God created the heaven (space) and earth (matter).
A pretty good scientific answer of the universe from what many call ignorant, barbaric savages don't you think.
Interestingly, pneuma's straw man version of evolution with regards to rape and morality is just one of four problems I find to not knowing the scripture. The problem that many religious people willfully ignore scripture. I'm referring to how the OT treats rape victims, by killing them if they didn't cry out in a town, or forcing them to marry their rapist. So much for an alleged god given morality. And Christians can't make the lame answer that they are no longer under the OT law, as the law still existed.
A second problem is that of language. By not knowing the original language means you are reliant on a translation, and often one that is done by a biased person. And then we have the dictionary dippers who think they know what they are talking about but have to rely on biased arguments from authority.
The third problem is our world view is so far removed from 2,000 years ago, as the OP indicates. So our view of angels is different to what the first century AD Jews thought of them. We also don't know what other people thought as we don't have their writings. For example we know there were different sects of Christianity and Judaism, yet we have none of their writings.
The fourth problem is we know the scriptures we do have were not original. For example chapter 21 of the gospel according to John was added at the end of the 2nd century / start of the 3rd century AD. The Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7) as a trinity interpolation, probably mid 4th century AD. Matthew 28:19 is also an interpolation that reflects 3rd century AD doctrinal developments. According to the 4th century chronicler, Eusebius, Matthew 28:19 originally had 'baptize in my name', with no mention of the trinity.
Tell that to the archaeologist, they would tell you the scripture are very accurate.
You mean like the cities David built 200 years after he had died? Or how Jesus was born twice, over 10 years apart? You mean that accurate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Why should they? Science will only prove the accuracy of scripture, eventually.
Strange, it's had the opposite effect for over 2,000 years. I can't see this trend changing anytime soon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
The scriptures actually promote scientific study Mordant. Not only do they promote scientific study they tell us what we will find via scientific study long before man could even imagine such an outcome.
Example: The universe is made up of time, space and matter.
In the beginning (time) God created the heaven (space) and earth (matter).
A pretty good scientific answer of the universe from what many call ignorant, barbaric savages don't you think.
Anthony Flew didn't come to any conclusion from the evidence. He simply hated the beautiful agnosticism of rationalism and the wonderful patience of empiricism, favoring the more emotionally over-colored and anthropomorphic idea of Deism.
Flew's idea was basically the age-old argument of it is too complex for me, therefore God first penned by the equally brilliant Pagan Supernaturalist Claudius Galenus (Galen) about the human excretory system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
You obviously don't know what you are talking about. Flew came to believed in a deity because of the complexities of the universe. Knowing full well that if even 1 thing went askew the universe would not exist.
Read your own comment again:
"...because of the complexities of the universe." Is exactly the pagan Galen's argument about the "irreducible" complexity of the kidneys.
"..if even 1 thing went askew..." is the exact wording in the "Fine-tuning argument" which I quoted Flew talking about in his "not so senile" old age.
Galen wasn't an idiot either... but he did have an emotional preference for what he made of the Fine-tuning argument (just like Flew also said, you already have to believe in a Creator to see a universe of only watches and still think they need a Creator). We always compare the synthetic against the natural, but if everything was designed, then everything is synthetic (made by a mind).
As you insist on going off topic before shutting the conversation down with the cry of being 'off topic', I have raised your three bones of contention in the science section, as you asked. The links are :
You mean like the cities David built 200 years after he had died? Or how Jesus was born twice, over 10 years apart? You mean that accurate?
Strange, it's had the opposite effect for over 2,000 years. I can't see this trend changing anytime soon.
As I knew it, you don't understand science.
I see competing perspectives on time and history as well as science confounding the analyses. It is generally misleading to use our sequential, linear time perspective on historical recordings by a culture that did not have that perspective. The scriptures chronicle the significant events that the ancients wanted to record without respect to their linear or chronological order of occurrence in time. Time tends to dominate the cognitive processing of our reality today which is why most of us wear or carry watches and order our lives in sequential time. That simply was not the case for the scripture scribes.
Interestingly, pneuma's straw man version of evolution with regards to rape and morality is just one of four problems I find to not knowing the scripture. The problem that many religious people willfully ignore scripture. I'm referring to how the OT treats rape victims, by killing them if they didn't cry out in a town, or forcing them to marry their rapist. So much for an alleged god given morality. And Christians can't make the lame answer that they are no longer under the OT law, as the law still existed.
A second problem is that of language. By not knowing the original language means you are reliant on a translation, and often one that is done by a biased person. And then we have the dictionary dippers who think they know what they are talking about but have to rely on biased arguments from authority.
The third problem is our world view is so far removed from 2,000 years ago, as the OP indicates. So our view of angels is different to what the first century AD Jews thought of them. We also don't know what other people thought as we don't have their writings. For example we know there were different sects of Christianity and Judaism, yet we have none of their writings.
The fourth problem is we know the scriptures we do have were not original. For example chapter 21 of the gospel according to John was added at the end of the 2nd century / start of the 3rd century AD. The Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7) as a trinity interpolation, probably mid 4th century AD. Matthew 28:19 is also an interpolation that reflects 3rd century AD doctrinal developments. According to the 4th century chronicler, Eusebius, Matthew 28:19 originally had 'baptize in my name', with no mention of the trinity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Then you shouldn't have raised all 3 misrepresentations of science, then, should you?
And before you deny it again, I CAN and WILL quote you.
Learn your scripture.
Proverbs 6:16–19, which damns you twice, and the ninth commandment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
You mean like the cities David built 200 years after he had died? Or how Jesus was born twice, over 10 years apart? You mean that accurate?
Strange, it's had the opposite effect for over 2,000 years. I can't see this trend changing anytime soon.
As I knew it, you don't understand science.
If you had of read the thread you would have seen I have already replied to much of your posts. And what I have not replied to I spent a better part of a year in discussion with trans and am not going to go into it all again.
Anthony Flew didn't come to any conclusion from the evidence. He simply hated the beautiful agnosticism of rationalism and the wonderful patience of empiricism, favoring the more emotionally over-colored and anthropomorphic idea of Deism.
Flew's idea was basically the age-old argument of it is too complex for me, therefore God first penned by the equally brilliant Pagan Supernaturalist Claudius Galenus (Galen) about the human excretory system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
You obviously don't know what you are talking about. Flew came to believed in a deity because of the complexities of the universe. Knowing full well that if even 1 thing went askew the universe would not exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
Read your own comment again:
"...because of the complexities of the universe." Is exactly the pagan Galen's argument about the "irreducible" complexity of the kidneys.
"..if even 1 thing went askew..." is the exact wording in the "Fine-tuning argument" which I quoted Flew talking about in his "not so senile" old age.
Galen wasn't an idiot either... but he did have an emotional preference for what he made of the Fine-tuning argument (just like Flew also said, you already have to believe in a Creator to see a universe of only watches and still think they need a Creator). We always compare the synthetic against the natural, but if everything was designed, then everything is synthetic (made by a mind).
There is a difference between what I said and what you said.
Your saying flew saw the the universes complexities as being something he could not understand therefore he switched to a belief in a god.
I am saying flew understood the complexities of the universe and realized that there must be a god.
The probability that the universe and all that it contains came from basically nothing to what it is today is astronomical; one little thing goes askew and we would have nothing.
The A & E crowd are not suppose to believe in miracles, yet to believe what you do is one heck of a miracle.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
