- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi again What Counts
Quote many scientists are something like Dr. Frog. they are confident they have a clear understanding of the universe around them. after all they have such big expensive equipment, they get so many big grants from the government and they have so many respectable predecessor scientists who have put forward so many nice hypothesises which they now accept as facts. however, in reality, their knowledge is comparable to Dr. Frog's knowledge of his universe. of course there are “truths” in some of the scientific theories but there are also defects: the difficulty of the senses being imperfect, the tendency to make mistakes, the tendency to cheat, the problem of being illusioned etc . Please can you justify your accusation of cheating. This forum is not a professionally peer-reviewed publication for science papers. If it was, you would (and should) be challenged to put up evidence for this serious accusation. Yes a few are shown to have cheated, and they are found out very quickly. If you can point out a defect in the theory of gravitation, or the atomic model, or indeed evolution by natural selection, I'm keen to hear it.
Quote western scientific knowledge has put forward a description of the universe based on the planets orbiting around the sun and through our experimental observations it appears the planets do orbit around the sun or that the sun orbits around the planets. because we really don't know what our position is in the universe there are many models which are equally valid in that they explain the observed evidence. nowadays we only seriously consider one model, the heliocentric or sun-centred model, but in the past scientists and philosophers also considered geocentric or earth-centred models. so far there is no way of proving conclusively one or the other by our experience because we can't really tell what this earth is doing FROM WHERE WE ARE. we look into the sky and we see so many other planets and stars moving, but everything is moving relative to everything else. so we don't really know what is moving. we are right in the middle of it all, we can't really see what's happening. If we were living in the 15th Century, your statement here would be reasonable. However, we have sent Voyager missions to the edge of our solar system, and the pictures they sent back would be very different if our current model is wrong, because the calculations of the trajectory of the craft are based on it. If you had publicly voiced a few hundred years ago your opinion that the accepted view was open for question, you might have suffered the same persecution as Galileo – the Catholic church declared itself right (although it was wrong). So we see science typically correcting itself at most within a few decades while on this issue it took the Catholic church 300 years to admit it was wrong.
Stuart
Hi again What Counts
Quote i believe in a Creator but it is a totally personal belief, coming not from observation of my 5 senses, not from archaeological proof that shows up every now and then, or someone's else experience etc. i know there is a GOD from my own personal experience. i know HE exists becos we actually communicate. that is something i will not impose on u if u don't believe me. but i will say that in general, people around me (non-believers included) believe me to be of sound mind, stable temperament, acceptable intelligence. First you say you believe, then you say you know. If your dictionary contains the same definitions as mine, then there is an important difference between the two. Do you make extraordinary claims for your god / messiah / holy friend? If not then that is fine. But you say you communicate with it. How do you do this without the use of your senses?
Quote i believe God speaks to us only when we really really want to listen. i heard nothing for years. and was actually wishing i wud hear nothing. for wat wud be better than to live life and bear no consequences for your actions. do as you will becos u know wat, there's no God, there's no plan, there's just tons of people and random things happening. well that was how i was, and how wrong cud i be. but like i said, u don't have to believe me, thats ur own perogative. but u can't tell me there's no God either. Well you have tried to tell me you know there is a god, then you tell me I can’t make the contrary claim. Seems a bit unfair! I will tell you that as a result of my experiences I do not think there is a god of the kind you are describing. I cannot prove it, but then I cannot prove there is no teapot orbiting between us and Mars, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot either.
I do appreciate your discussion. Perhaps a new thread in “Creation and Science” would be more appropriate than this one, devoted as it is to demolishing the very fragile credibility of a gospel account!
Stuart
shucks i wish i hadn't made such a long post, thats wat happens when you get one hour with absolutely nothing to do (very rare!)
. i won't be able to address all ur points until after saturday unfortunately, as i have very tight scheds the next couple of days, but i will get back to this, thanks!Quote (Stu @ Nov. 15 2007,20:36) Hi again What Counts Quote i believe in a Creator but it is a totally personal belief, coming not from observation of my 5 senses, not from archaeological proof that shows up every now and then, or someone's else experience etc. i know there is a GOD from my own personal experience. i know HE exists becos we actually communicate. that is something i will not impose on u if u don't believe me. but i will say that in general, people around me (non-believers included) believe me to be of sound mind, stable temperament, acceptable intelligence. First you say you believe, then you say you know. If your dictionary contains the same definitions as mine, then there is an important difference between the two. Do you make extraordinary claims for your god / messiah / holy friend? If not then that is fine. But you say you communicate with it. How do you do this without the use of your senses?
Quote i believe God speaks to us only when we really really want to listen. i heard nothing for years. and was actually wishing i wud hear nothing. for wat wud be better than to live life and bear no consequences for your actions. do as you will becos u know wat, there's no God, there's no plan, there's just tons of people and random things happening. well that was how i was, and how wrong cud i be. but like i said, u don't have to believe me, thats ur own perogative. but u can't tell me there's no God either. Well you have tried to tell me you know there is a god, then you tell me I can’t make the contrary claim. Seems a bit unfair! I will tell you that as a result of my experiences I do not think there is a god of the kind you are describing. I cannot prove it, but then I cannot prove there is no teapot orbiting between us and Mars, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot either.
I do appreciate your discussion. Perhaps a new thread in “Creation and Science” would be more appropriate than this one, devoted as it is to demolishing the very fragile credibility of a gospel account!
Stuart
hi Stu,
i was telling you the basis of my beliefs, did that not come across? i BELIEVE only becos i KNOW from my OWN personal experience that there is a God. like i said before, i am not imposing that on you if your own experiences have not led you to this conclusion.
i am NOT telling u that u can't make a contrary claim. i am saying u can't make that claim for me. u can't tell me there's no God for me. becos i know from my own personal experience there is one. simple as that. for you there is no God becos you haven't had any experience to convince u He exists, but u can't say that for me. that's what im trying to say.
i started reading this thread a week or so ago and noticed ur comments every now and then, with the aim of informing the reader there is no God period. whether it's for you or for anyone else. well what i'm trying to say is that u can't make that claim for me.
do i make extraordinary claims for my God? well i don't really know wat u mean by extraordinary. but i do believe he created the world. i guess thats pretty extraordinary haha
well as for how i communicate with God, i will only say this for myself as i don't know for sure if that is how other people communicate with God. i think i've mentioned that i wasn't always able to communicate with Him. i spent 4 and a half years in church as a child but left when i turned 14. i learned about the bible, accepted Jesus gladly as my saviour and prayed like everyone else but like u i just couldn't hear God speak to me in any way.
it's only recently that i realised why… i wasn't really interested in speaking or listening to HIM anyway. in fact when i was 14 i was hoping He wasn't real and actually wasn't too concerned either way. i had my own really interesting (to me) life to live and God was NOT a part of it. all those troublesome doctrines, rules of conduct and unnecessary arguments, when were people going to finally get a life, was how i felt. i felt quite carefree and happy when i bid adios to the church and everyone there.
yet in the years that followed, on a couple of occasions in my life, at certain crucial times i heard a quiet “voice” speak to me. i call it a “voice” for lack of a better word. it's not a sound u hear, certainly nothing u can see, feel with your hands or smell with ur nose, taste with ur mouth. it's like a “knowing”. u know something becos the “voice”” tells” u. at that time i preferred to call it intuition.
a series of personal events very recently, however, changed my mind. i will not go into detail but becos of some things that happened in my life, i suddenly felt the need to find out more about God. and for the first time in my life, i really tried to find God. just a deep sincere humble desire to find out more about Him. i started praying again, reading the Bible, reading ABOUT the Bible. and i started hearing the “voice” again, what i had called intuition before, but which i've come to recognise as God communicating with me, guiding me as i live my life. i didn't hear this “voice” most of my life. only a couple of times before now. i had always dismissed it as intuition even tho one particular time i wondered how i cud have known what i knew back then. now it's different, i speak (pray) to God every day and that “voice” guides me quite frequently when i need to be guided.
that's wat i meant when i said “i believe God speaks to us only when we really really want to listen”. my sincerity in wanting to know God only came quite recently (a little more than 2 months). before that when i was in church i realise i was just going thru the motions, full of half-heartedness
i was really interested in studying more about the nature of God, so that's how i ended up on the trinity thread, and then got led here. i do agree my earlier post about science doesn't quite belong here, it was just in response to the comments u were making Stu, so actually if u want me to just PM you to answer ur questions and give u the links i'd be glad to. what i wrote about science is what i've gradually come to realise about science, and while im truly grateful for all the advancements in technology and happy i dont have to wash my clothes manually or walk on foot to the next town, my problem with some scientists is they shudn't try to teach as fact what are still hypotheses.
what counts
Quote (What Counts @ Nov. 19 2007,02:48) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 15 2007,20:36) Hi again What Counts Quote i believe in a Creator but it is a totally personal belief, coming not from observation of my 5 senses, not from archaeological proof that shows up every now and then, or someone's else experience etc. i know there is a GOD from my own personal experience. i know HE exists becos we actually communicate. that is something i will not impose on u if u don't believe me. but i will say that in general, people around me (non-believers included) believe me to be of sound mind, stable temperament, acceptable intelligence. First you say you believe, then you say you know. If your dictionary contains the same definitions as mine, then there is an important difference between the two. Do you make extraordinary claims for your god / messiah / holy friend? If not then that is fine. But you say you communicate with it. How do you do this without the use of your senses?
Quote i believe God speaks to us only when we really really want to listen. i heard nothing for years. and was actually wishing i wud hear nothing. for wat wud be better than to live life and bear no consequences for your actions. do as you will becos u know wat, there's no God, there's no plan, there's just tons of people and random things happening. well that was how i was, and how wrong cud i be. but like i said, u don't have to believe me, thats ur own perogative. but u can't tell me there's no God either. Well you have tried to tell me you know there is a god, then you tell me I can’t make the contrary claim. Seems a bit unfair! I will tell you that as a result of my experiences I do not think there is a god of the kind you are describing. I cannot prove it, but then I cannot prove there is no teapot orbiting between us and Mars, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot either.
I do appreciate your discussion. Perhaps a new thread in “Creation and Science” would be more appropriate than this one, devoted as it is to demolishing the very fragile credibility of a gospel account!
Stuart
hi Stu,
i was telling you the basis of my beliefs, did that not come across? i BELIEVE only becos i KNOW from my OWN personal experience that there is a God. like i said before, i am not imposing that on you if your own experiences have not led you to this conclusion.
i am NOT telling u that u can't make a contrary claim. i am saying u can't make that claim for me. u can't tell me there's no God for me. becos i know from my own personal experience there is one. simple as that. for you there is no God becos you haven't had any experience to convince u He exists, but u can't say that for me. that's what im trying to say.
i started reading this thread a week or so ago and noticed ur comments every now and then, with the aim of informing the reader there is no God period. whether it's for you or for anyone else. well what i'm trying to say is that u can't make that claim for me.
do i make extraordinary claims for my God? well i don't really know wat u mean by extraordinary. but i do believe he created the world. i guess thats pretty extraordinary haha
well as for how i communicate with God, i will only say this for myself as i don't know for sure if that is how other people communicate with God. i think i've mentioned that i wasn't always able to communicate with Him. i spent 4 and a half years in church as a child but left when i turned 14. i learned about the bible, accepted Jesus gladly as my saviour and prayed like everyone else but like u i just couldn't hear God speak to me in any way.
it's only recently that i realised why… i wasn't really interested in speaking or listening to HIM anyway. in fact when i was 14 i was hoping He wasn't real and actually wasn't too concerned either way. i had my own really interesting (to me) life to live and God was NOT a part of it. all those troublesome doctrines, rules of conduct and unnecessary arguments, when were people going to finally get a life, was how i felt. i felt quite carefree and happy when i bid adios to the church and everyone there.
yet in the years that followed, on a couple of occasions in my life, at certain crucial times i heard a quiet “voice” speak to me. i call it a “voice” for lack of a better word. it's not a sound u hear, certainly nothing u can see, feel with your hands or smell with ur nose, taste with ur mouth. it's like a “knowing”. u know something becos the “voice”” tells” u. at that time i preferred to call it intuition.
a series of personal events very recently, however, changed my mind. i will not go into detail but becos of some things that happened in my life, i suddenly felt the need to find out more about God. and for the first time in my life, i really tried to find God. just a deep sincere humble desire to find out more about Him. i started praying again, reading the Bible, reading ABOUT the Bible. and i started hearing the “voice” again, what i had called intuition before, but which i've come to recognise as God communicating with me, guiding me as i live my life. i didn't hear this “voice” most of my life. only a couple of times before now. i had always dismissed it as intuition even tho one particular time i wondered how i cud have known what i knew back then. now it's different, i speak (pray) to God every day and that “voice” guides me quite frequently when i need to be guided.
that's wat i meant when i said “i believe God speaks to us only when we really really want to listen”. my sincerity in wanting to know God only came quite recently (a little more than 2 months). before that when i was in church i realise i was just going thru the motions, full of half-heartedness
i was really interested in studying more about the nature of God, so that's how i ended up on the trinity thread, and then got led here. i do agree my earlier post about science doesn't quite belong here, it was just in response to the comments u were making Stu, so actually if u want me to just PM you to answer ur questions and give u the links i'd be glad to. what i wrote about science is what i've gradually come to realise about science, and while im truly grateful for all the advancements in technology and happy i dont have to wash my clothes manually or walk on foot to the next town, my problem with some scientists is they shudn't try to teach as fact what are still hypotheses.
what counts
Welcome back!
Quote (What Counts @ Nov. 19 2007,02:48) my problem with some scientists is they shudn't try to teach as fact what are still hypotheses.
Hi again What CountsWhat would you say fits into this category of things that should be taught as hypotheses that are presented as facts? Bear in mind you may be asked to disprove them for us!
Stuart
sorry im not such a good forum participant, u'll need 2b patient with me as i wont have time till this weekend for this. apologies again!
Quote (Stu @ Nov. 15 2007,20:28) Hi What Counts Quote i'm talking about darwinists and scientists. this is the method scientists use. they try to understand things around them by the perceptions of their senses. using information gathered through their senses they develop hypothesis to explain the observed phenomena. this process is not perfect because our sense perceptions are themselves imperfect. our senses only give a small sample of the actual data. for example the eyes can only see within a restricted range of the spectrum. there are light waves above the colors we can see and the are also light waves below the colors we can see. we can only see one small band. we can also only see a short distance, after some distance everything becomes blurred and indistinct. in this way the information coming thru our eyes is not perfect because we can only see a very limited amount of the actual information. similar limitations apply to all our other senses. In this paragraph you have described facts that scientists have discovered that are beyond our unaided senses!
Stuart
yes, and i have nothing against science or the scientifc method to attain knowledge, modern technology and all the conveniences it has allowed us in day to day living. i am just saying scientists do not have the WHOLE picture. BUT if i were to compare the regular man-in-the-street with a scientist using the earlier frog-in-the-well analogy, most of us would be myopic frogs (in the well).Quote (Stu @ Nov. 15 2007,20:28) Quote not only are the senses imperfect, but i am also imperfect. if i have a hypothesis which i am anxious to prove the tendency is for me to cheat. because i want some recognition by proving my particular theory i will tend to ignore the evidence that doesn't support my theory and i will report the evidence which does. this tendency to cheat is within us all. Yes I often think that creationists should be a bit more careful about bearing so much false witness.
Stuartyes there are many sets of “facts” on both sides of the evolution debate that are myth. don’t get me wrong, both sides twist data or conveniently leave data out for a wrong conclusion to form. it makes for a swamp of junk science that one must wade through to form an educated opinion on the subject..
Quote (Stu @ Nov. 15 2007,20:28) Quote in so many ways our so-called scientific knowledge is imperfect. No one has ever claimed perfection for science – actually the opposite. There is grey at the edges, unlike in the mathematical and religious worlds. Science as a whole does claim to have the most rigorous and useful explanations. More than that, science works, and it makes the kinds of prophecies that leave the bible looking like a third-rate stage illusionist.
Stuartso we both agree, that science is imperfect. which is fine. what is important for me though is this. when a hypothesis has NOT YET been proven to be a fact, it is WRONG to teach it as fact. it remains a hypothesis, a tentative explanation for a phenomenon. to be used as a basis for further investigation.
globally taught in textbooks, scientists present their account of the origin of life as the only possible scientific conclusion. we have all heard it at school in the science class… in the begining there was nothing… and from that nothing came a big bang (Big Bang theory). it created all the mass of the universe, from this mass, all the planets were formed, set into motion, all orbiting around the sun. a “primordial soup” ('primordial soup', dr stanley miller) consisting of amino acids, proteins and other essential ingredients came together and life gradually arose from these chemicals. in a nutshell, life was created by chance from matter. today many scientists propagate the belief that life originates from matter. however, there is still no ample proof, either experimentally or theoretically, that life comes from matter. numerous lab experiments have been attempted to create life, consciousness from chemical experimentation, but so far the stance that life originates from matter is still unsubstantiated. without observation (we weren't there) and without experiments to prove it, this scientific conclusion as to the origins of life can only remain as mental speculation. scientists and evolutionists, yes evolutionists, argue amongst themselves in peer-to-peer reviews and journals, where they acknowledge that this theory is beset with intractable problems. yes amongst themselves, this unanimous front breaks down. yet in popular presentations and textbooks one finds little hint of such widespread doubt. they hold on to this stance fervently despite all sorts of scientific objections.
J.S. Huxley, prominent evolutionist:
“A little calculation demonstrates how incredibly improbable the results of natural selection can be when enough time is available. Following Professor Muller, we can ask what would have been the odds against a higher animal, such as a horse, being produced by chance alone: that is to say by the accidental accumulation of the necessaryfavourable mutations, without the intervention of selection. To calculate these odds, we need to estimate two quantities the proportion of favourable mutations to useless or harmful ones; and the total number of mutational steps, or successive favourable mutations, needed for the production of a horse from some simple microscopic ancestor. A proportion of favourable mutations of one in a thousand does not sound much, but is probably generous, since so many mutations are lethal, preventing the organism living at all, and the great majority of the rest throw the machinery slightly out of gear. And a total of a million mutational steps sounds a great deal, but is probably an under-estimate after all, that only means one step every 2,000 years during biological time as a whole. However, let us take these figures as being reasonable estimates. With this proportion, but without any selection, we should clearly have to breed 1,000 strains to get one with one favourable mutation; a million strains (a thousand squared) to get one containing two favourable mutations; and so on, up to a thousand to the millionth power to get one containing a million. Of course, this could not really happen, but it is a useful way of visualizing the fantastic odds against getting a number of favourable mutations in one strain through pure chance alone. A thousand to the millionth power, when written out, becomes the figure 1 with three million noughts after it: and that would take three large volumes of about five hundred pages each, just to print! Actually this is a meaninglessly large figure, but it shows what a degree of improbability natur
al selection has to surmount, and can circumvent. One with three million noughts after it is the measure of the unlikeliness of a horse the odds against it happening at all. No one would bet on anything so improbable happening (my emphasis); and yet it has happened. It has happened, thanks to the workings of natural selection and the properties of living substance which make natural selection inevitable.” (Huxley, J.S., “Evolution in Action,” [1953], Penguin: Harmondsworth, Middlesex UK, 1963, reprint, pp.49-51)Taylor, also an ardent evolutionist, wonders how color filters got into the eye:
“There are no precursors for the lens, the origin of which, in the words of Gordon Walls of Wayne University, who has made the study of the vertebrate eye in all its forms his life work, is 'a tantalizing mystery'. (Part of the mystery is how the lens comes to lie inside the coats or 'tunics' of the eye, which derive from the meningeal coats of the brain. It is, so to say, a bit of skin which has got inside the coating of the brain.)“In the course of evolution various refinements were added, notably the ability to distinguish colours. Less well known is the fact that the eye employs various red and yellow filters to enhance acuity. The pigeon, for instance, has yellow filters which take out the blue of the sky in that part of the retina it uses when looking upwards, and red filters which separate the greens in that part it uses in looking downwards. (G.R.Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 99.)
“Could our modern synthetic theory of evolution be wrong, as were its predecessors, evolution through the inheritance of acquired characters (Lamarck) and instant new species by mutations (De Vries)? What will scientists say a hundred years from now about Neodarwinism, the current theory? I have my doubts about one point in the concept. Of course, that isn't bad; it is how science progresses. Someone doubts an
accepted point, and other scientists, being fundamentally conservative about the things they have learned, immediately pounce on the doubter (providing the point he brings up can be taken seriously). Eventually this leads to one of two situations, both of them good for science: either the doubter is proven wrong or he is proven right. If he is wrong, much will have been learned in marshaling the facts required to settle the question. If he is right, whole new areas of understanding may have been opened.” (Salisbury, F.B., “Doubts About the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution,”The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 33, September 1971, pp.335-338, p.354)“The Origin of Variability The problem is the origin of variability. Both Lamarck and De Vries put forth their theories to account for this. Darwin was fully aware of the seriousness of the problem, and he retreated with misgivings to Lamarck's ideas. The modern theory emphasizes the importance of genetic recombinations but ultimately rests upon mutations as the source of the variability acted upon by natural selection. This is where I run into problems. … Gene frequencies do change in populations as a result of selection pressures. This has been observed in the field and duplicated in the laboratory. … But will changes in gene frequencies in response to selection pressures account for evolution in the broadest sense: life originating in the ancient soupy seas and developing over eons of time until the earth is covered with flowering plants and thinking men? Only if there is a continual source of new genes for selection to act upon . If, somewhere back in the dim reaches of time, a cell evolved the process of photo-synthesis, it is because, according to the present theory, the proper genes and their enzymes were there for selection to act upon. Could random changes in the nucleotide sequences of DNA (mutations) provide these genes and ultimately the enzymes? At the moment, I doubt it, and my reasons for doubting are based upon discoveries during the past 20 years that have indicated to us how really complex living systems are. We have known for a long time that man's body is an intricate and complex machine. Now we know that the cell itself is far more complex than we had imagined. It includes thousands of functioning enzymes, each one of them a complex machine itself. Furthermore, each enzyme comes into being in response to a gene, a strand of DNA. The information content of the gene (its complexity) must be as great as that of the enzyme that it controls. One might begin (as I did) to get the intuitive feeling that genes and enzymes are too complex to originate by randomly changing nucleotide sequences.” (Salisbury, F.B., “Doubts About the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution,” The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 33, September 1971, pp.335-338, p.354)
“Elementary textbooks of biology relate a simplistic tale about the origin of life on earth which may be true, or partly true, but may be quite false. They describe a prebiotic world in which a rich mix of simple chemicals was formed and underwent reactions which produced the chemical building blocks of life today. They tell of short chains of nucleic acids forming spontaneously, and then becoming able to encourage their own replication in a manner similar to the replication of DNA today. If such nucleic acids did form spontaneously on the early earth, and were able to encourage their own replication, then evolution guided by natural selection would have begun. These primeval nucleic acids would have been the first things able to make other things which are very similar to themselves, but usually slightly different. The first letters in the code of life would have become linked together. Undirected mutations in the first self-replicating nucleic acids would have allowed new, more efficient, nucleic acids to evolve. Some of these might have been `more efficient' because they encouraged other components of the primordial world to cluster around the nucleic acids and form the earliest simple `cells'. At some point, of course, some of the nucleic acids would have become capable of the great `trick' of encouraging specific protein molecules to form. Nucleic acids would have begun to encode proteins, and, with the awesome catalytic powers of the proteins available, life would have really been on its way. It is an appealingly simple tale. Many think it is far too simple to be taken seriously. Some suggest alternative scenarios in which modern life evolved from completely different beginnings, in which the nucleic acids such as DNA and RNA played no immediate part. Some suggest that the earliest living (or at least evolving) things were not composed of organic chemicals, but were composed of inorganic minerals which eventually gave rise to the organic chemicals which displaced them.” (Scott A., “The Creation of Life: Past, Future, Alien,” Basil Blackwell: Oxford UK, 1986, pp.184-185)
“This is not the place to enter into a deep analysis of the mystery of the origin of life. … For our present purposes it should be sufficient for me to say that I am not able to reveal to you how life began, because I do not know for sure, and neither does anyone else. Scientists have developed a few plausible ideas on the subject, and quite a few less plausible ones. The attempts to recreate the chemistry involved in life's origin are at a very early stage and have met with no really dramatic and convincing successes. It will be some time, at least, before we can describe the precise chemistry of life's origin with the same confidence as we can describe the chemistry which sustains life today. That is no disgrace. It is difficult to describe with precision events which occurred at least 4,000 million years ago when nobody was around to witness them. (Scott A., “The Creation of Life: Past, Future, Alien,” Basil Blackwell: Oxford UK, 1986, p.185-186)
these are just a few quotes from published work of scientists and peer-to-peer journals. and yet in schools and popular presentations, they teach and present evolution to
us as unquestionable FACT. WHY???biologist W. H. Thorpe writes, “thus we may be faced with a possibility that the origin of life, like the origin of the universe, becomes an impenetrable barrier to science and a block which resists all attempts to reduce biology to chemistry and physics.”
Theodisius Dobzhansky, prominent evolutionist, writes, “our scientific knowledge is, of course, quite insufficient to give anything like satisfactory accounts of these transitions [from no life to life, from no mind to mind].” Dobzhansky goes on to call the origin of life “miraculous.”
i could go on and on and find more quotes and writings from scientists, but the point im trying to make is this: evolution and the scientific explanations for the origins of the universe and life are far from proven and tested. life originating from matter has not (and will not i believe) ever be proven. yet everyday i see life originating from LIFE (birth, creation) and i see monkeys still swinging from trees. darwin has said that some species become extinct in the struggle for survival. those which are capable of surviving will survive, but those which are not will become extinct. so survival and extinction, according to darwin, go side by side. the monkey is NOT extinct. our supposed immediate forefather, the monkey, is still existing.
scientists, no doubt, have more specialised knowledge than the regular man-in-the-street. my point is that they don't yet have the WHOLE picture yet and shouldn't paint it as such.
Quote (Towshab @ Oct. 28 2007,07:44) Quote (Towshab @ Oct. 27 2007,14:39) Quote (david @ Oct. 27 2007,14:35) Although it is true that the Bible speaks of a man named Bethlehem, whose mother was named Ephrathah, it is also true that the Bible speaks of a town named Bethlehem. In fact there were two towns named Bethlehem. One was in Judah, the southern part of the Jewish homeland, and the other was in the north. But, the Bethlehem in Judah was in more ancient times called Ephrathah. So, Micah might have been using the phrase “Bethlehem Ephrathah” as a way to make it clear that he was referring to the town of Bethlehem that used to be known as Ephrathah – in other words, the Bethlehem that is in Judah. –Some website. And true enough, Jesus remarkably came from that smaller, lesser bethlehem. Remarkable prophecy!
Actually, Ruth and Boaz were from Ephrathah. They were the great grandparents of King David. So Matthew still took the quote out of context.
Forgot to add, Luke says that Jesus' parents were from Nazareth, not Bethlehem. Luke just has them traveling to Bethlehem to be born so he is not literally from Bethlehem. This being the case Matthew was even more incorrect because Jesus did not come from Bethlehem. Thanks for pointing that out. You added to the list of Matthew's errors.
Hi Tow,
Those who would apply their legalistic rules to the revelation of God and mock it make themselves greater than scripture and the God Who gave it.Science worships logic and demands rational proofs.
Wisdom follows belief.
Luke 7:35
But wisdom is justified of all her children.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 10 2007,20:38) Quote (Towshab @ Oct. 28 2007,07:44) Quote (Towshab @ Oct. 27 2007,14:39) Quote (david @ Oct. 27 2007,14:35) Although it is true that the Bible speaks of a man named Bethlehem, whose mother was named Ephrathah, it is also true that the Bible speaks of a town named Bethlehem. In fact there were two towns named Bethlehem. One was in Judah, the southern part of the Jewish homeland, and the other was in the north. But, the Bethlehem in Judah was in more ancient times called Ephrathah. So, Micah might have been using the phrase “Bethlehem Ephrathah” as a way to make it clear that he was referring to the town of Bethlehem that used to be known as Ephrathah – in other words, the Bethlehem that is in Judah. –Some website. And true enough, Jesus remarkably came from that smaller, lesser bethlehem. Remarkable prophecy!
Actually, Ruth and Boaz were from Ephrathah. They were the great grandparents of King David. So Matthew still took the quote out of context.
Forgot to add, Luke says that Jesus' parents were from Nazareth, not Bethlehem. Luke just has them traveling to Bethlehem to be born so he is not literally from Bethlehem. This being the case Matthew was even more incorrect because Jesus did not come from Bethlehem. Thanks for pointing that out. You added to the list of Matthew's errors.
Hi Tow,
Those who would apply their legalistic rules to the revelation of God and mock it make themselves greater than scripture and the God Who gave it.Science worships logic and demands rational proofs.
Wisdom follows belief.
Luke 7:35
But wisdom is justified of all her children.
Sorry, can't respond. Surely you know the new board rules?Hi Tow,
It is a pity because faith needs to be challenged and cossetted christians need to be asked the hard questions. Most in the world and many in churches do not have useful faith and pretending otherwise by associating only in happy clubs is not the mission of the gospel.Hi What Counts
Since you posted, some of the areas of the forum have evolved and I am no longer welcome in them. Please see
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….8;t=153
for replies to what you posted earlier.
Stuart
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 11 2007,16:41) Hi Tow,
It is a pity because faith needs to be challenged and cossetted christians need to be asked the hard questions. Most in the world and many in churches do not have useful faith and pretending otherwise by associating only in happy clubs is not the mission of the gospel.
Nick You can go on their site to your hearts content and challenge them. Talking to an Atheist and Antichrist makes me sick and I can't understand any Christaian that would want to do so, but I guess to each His own. Just remember tht members have lost their faith in Jesus because of Tow.
Mrs.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
