Religion

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ May 3 2006, 03:01 PM) [snapback]249192[/snapback]</div>

Galaxee, Wildkow is in his 50s. I wonder if he is playing mental or he really is mental. I am convinced it's the latter, there is enough proof around.
Ohh BTW Wildkow, if you are ignoring me like you stated why do you respond to me? :blink:

Here is your favorite word MildCOW *PLONK*

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ May 3 2006, 11:42 AM) [snapback]249136[/snapback]</div>

Science can't answer "why" questions, just "how". "Why" is the realm of philosophy, of which religion is a subset. The problem with many religions is that they are dogmactic and inflexible. They don't gracefully handle evidence against their postulates... there in lies the problem.

Galaxee... It's just "out". "Over and out" is not proper radio proceedure because the proword "over" indicates that you expect a response, whereas "out" means that you don't expect a response (i.e, you're terminating the conversation). Sorry, just a pet peeve of mine.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ May 3 2006, 01:42 PM) [snapback]249136[/snapback]</div>

Because GOD says he didn't use that method. In HIS WORD the Bible, he very clearly announces the creation of each individual group of animals: fish in the sea, flying creatures, man, etc, on their respective "day", or epoc of time. If he used evolution to create each species from another, why would he lie? God cannot lie.

Daniel, please don't tell me what I believe, or used to believe, or how I had to adjust my story, etc. Its VERY irritating the way you guys keep trying to lump everyone who believes in creation into one "nutty" group, and give them your pet kooky names. Its so childish, it reminds me of first grade on here.
I think you would find very few people today who would insist that God put all that stuff just to play with our heads. I don't deny the fossil record, just some people's interpretation of it. And, there are so many theories that I just can't keep up with them all.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ May 3 2006, 11:47 AM) [snapback]249184[/snapback]</div>

Evolution means change. "Species A evolved into species B" is the same statement as "Species A changed into species B." The evidence of change is abundant and convincing. Biologists, being scientists, like to use scientific words, so they call it evolution. But you may call it simply "change" if that makes you feel better.

My age has nothing to do with the validity of my arguments. But since you ask, I am 57. Old enough to have seen creationists' arguments evolve considerably, as one by one their objections to evolution have been shot down and they've been compelled to abandom them and invent new ones. Sadly for human progress, it's easier to invent a bogus argument than to demonstrate scientifically its "bogosity" (as Click and Clack would say).

And I'm not talking about two fossil forms that are similar. I am talking about clear, gradual, change from one form to another, through a multitude of successive forms. While gaps remain, any one example without gaps demonstrates change.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(keydiver @ May 3 2006, 02:52 PM) [snapback]249319[/snapback]</div>

When you assert what god supposedly said, what you really mean is that the Bible says that god said... and when you assert that the Bible is the word of god, what you really mean is that the Bible says it is the word of god.

The problem here is circular argument: The only argument you can offer that the Bible is the word of god is that the Bible says it is the word of god, and given that fact, anything the Bible says about what god supposedly says, is extremely suspect.

And when you say that god cannot lie, you are putting limits on god, based on your limited human understanding. How do you know god cannot lie? (Oh, of course, I suppose the Bible says he cannot lie.) If there is an all-powerful god, then he certainly could lie if he chose to. But anyway, you are (I gather) an old-earth creationist. It is the young-earth creationists who imply that god is a liar when they dispute the fossil record. Perhaps this is another of those arguments that creationists have had to abandon as the fossil record grows ever more abundant.

It's really rather amusing to listen to creationists from different schools argue with each other, all quoting the Bible to try to prove their separate incompatible versions of creationism. (On a separate, but related matter, I once saw a Catholic and a Pentacostalist come to blows over the question of salvation by grace vs salvation by works. Both supporting their arguments by quoting the Bible, chapter and verse. I wonder if young-earth and old-earth creationists ever try to settle the question of what it is the Bible really says by fisticuffs.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hybridTHEvibe @ May 3 2006, 12:11 PM) [snapback]249198[/snapback]</div>

hTv

I no longer have anyone on ignore as it defeats the purpose of this type of communication. Besides as you have probably noticed as soon as someone (not on my ignore list) quotes you it shows up in the thread.

Wildkow

p.s. Now I just mentally ignore you. :lol:

 

God did not put the fossils in the ground, mankind put them there, revealing a vast ignorance of His creation as beginning and ending in dust. Hence the scripture, "dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." This is a viewpoint my preacher once revealed to me. Scripture also speaks about the wisdom of men, which this saying certainly does not find favor with. But, neither have many well known accepted scientific discoveries and ideas when they made their first appearance in the history of mankind. I suppose this idea will yield either quick dismissal or no response at all.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(christchurch @ May 5 2006, 06:47 PM) [snapback]250570[/snapback]</div>

I'm not sure what this lie is supposed to be about...

No where in scripture does it imply that there are 6000 years to the existence of mankind as many imply.

There are vast gaps in time that are not covered in the books of chronicles.

There is alot of time between Adam and Eve until Noah... a time when even scripture reveals there were giant beasts "dinosaurs" that roamed the land. Races of men that were giants with 6 toes and 6 fingers. Supposed as some believe a perverted race before Noah created by angels having sex with women.

Who knows all the details of time. One thing is for sure.. there is no knowledge or counsel against the Lord.
If you think you have proved God wrong with science, you need to update your science and get more facts.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ May 5 2006, 10:55 PM) [snapback]250613[/snapback]</div>

This is the way that science is done in the Bush administration. You already have the answer a priori. If the science doesn't support the outcome you want (e.g., global warming is not a problem; increased levels of mercury in water isn't harmful, etc.) you "update" your science and get more facts. However, that is not the way that science is supposed to be done. Science is a search for the truth- not a means of providing evidence to support someone's foregone conclusion.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ May 6 2006, 03:21 AM) [snapback]250692[/snapback]</div>

Your right in theory.. but science is sooo terribly fragmented because of our limitatations to percieve and interpret what we percieve.

Right now... gabillions of seti data pieces are brought in from space monitoring noise... we are trying to see if there is any intelligence to it...

Problem is.... they could be telling us anything and we would not be able to interpret because "it is not what we are looking for".

Example... What if ancient man... say just 500 years ago... Ha!...
Was looking into space trying to get a signal or a sign?.. what a joke? He had no radio or anything other than his eyes which picks up a tiny fragment of the radiospectrum.

Now, let look back 50 years ago.. we thought we were pretty smart cookies by then.. we still were clueless based on todays technology.... Encryption?.. whats that? we would have said.....
Don't even start talking about digital computer language... we wouldn't have had a clue.

My point is if we try to say existence is based on our ability to understand and percieve.. we are fools.

We must not be so prideful that it blinds us to the fact there are enormous things we do not yet know... not only in the physical realm.. but the spiritual realm.. we are only babies in our knowledge.

Now we can take a leaf and see the life force around it with kirlian photography..tear the leaf in half and take a second picture and still see the whole leaf as the life force has not dissipated yet.

There are forces, powers, and entities all around us in our midst that influence on the spiritual plane that we are clueless to detect with instruments.

You are a spiritual being presently limited and trapped in your body for the present time.
But there are plenty of other beings who have no body that only are allowed to operate in the spirit realm.

Unless you are born, you have no authority to move about in the physical realm.

The more you learn, the more you see you don't know.

Even as when dealing with children and teenagers... those who think they know it all, usually know barely anything at all and are blind to all they don't know.

The farthur you look into space, the more you see you don't know about and understand.. such is life.

Our little pea brains cannot comprehend the breath and the width of creation and existence in this physical realm... let alone the spirit realm.

Don't make the same mistake those made who thought the world was flat, who thought you could never speak into a box and your loved on hear you on the other side of the world and see your picture.

Energy is a very fluid existence, you are not able to percieve it on all levels.

Can you see the wind, how about love?.. do they not exist?
How much of this can you pick up with all seven of your senses?
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/UHF_(radiospectrum)
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/radio-spectrum1.htm

We knew scarely none of this a few years ago... what will we know in another 100 years?

Now compare that to entities that are thousands of years old in the spirit realm?... they play with you like a puppet in the arena of your intelligence.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(keydiver @ May 3 2006, 02:52 PM) [snapback]249319[/snapback]</div>

I agree with you that the Bible is the word of God. I disagree that the first chapter of Genesis is to be taken literally because, using the rules of textual criticism, it cannot be taken literally.

One example:
When was the first morning and evening? (Gen. 1:3-4)
When was the sun was created? (Gen. 1:16-19
Do you really think Moses didn't know the sun rising brought the light that divided the day and the night?

Moses was smart; he knew that the sun rising brought the daylight. He would not have "contradicted" himself in the first two paragraphs of his writing. This internal evidence should be all we need to abandon the recent idea that Genesis is a history lesson.

Another example:
Refer to Gen. 1:26-27, when God created man. Spoke him into existence just like the rest of creation, "Let us make man in our image" and it was done. No assembly required. Now refer to Gen. 2:7, where God forms man out of the dust of the earth, and then breathed into his nostrils.

Refer to Gen. 2:8 - 25, where the creation account has man created first, then trees created out of the ground (2:9), and then He forms every beast of the field to see which animal would be a suitable mate for Adam. Wait, didn't Moses tell us that all the animals on land were created BEFORE Adam back in Gen 1:25? Man is created last in Gen 1:25, but first in Gen 2:9.

Do you really believe these two accounts of creation are mutually exclusive? That in chapter 1 Moses is lying, and telling the truth in chapter 2, or is it the reverse?

It doesn't take an evolutionary biologist in the 21st century to tell you that the creation accounts (yes, there are two) are not designed to tell us how the heavens and earth were created. By insisting that the Genesis accounts are literal histories, you miss the obvious reason they were written.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ May 7 2006, 12:55 AM) [snapback]250988[/snapback]</div>

What translation of the Bible are you using. Most translations that I read says "Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them." It seems to emphasize that God made them "out of the ground" and not some chronological order as you say (if it did it would have stated or began with "then" not "out of the ground") and brought them to Adam.

 

Quite interesting... before Noah.. it did not rain.. they didn't even know what it was.... who knows what physical properties were changed after the great flood.
Its hard to comprehend events when so little is given and times were do different and stories are often spoken in similitudes and types.

Trying to interpret Jesus's stories is one way the pharasees missed it.

(John 6:55 KJV) For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
(John 6:56 KJV) He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

(Mark 14:58 KJV) We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Randy @ May 7 2006, 07:49 PM) [snapback]251204[/snapback]</div>

Yes, it would help if you listed what version of the Bible you are using. I find it easy to follow Windstrings because I read out of the King James Version. (yes, I believe that is the TRUE english translation)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ May 7 2006, 08:28 PM) [snapback]251287[/snapback]</div>

It is really fun to read a hebrew "for old testament/Greek "for new testament interlinear version to see the side by side.

The nouns are backwards and actually seems to make more sense than the english language does.

King James was the first version that put it into English that made any sense..... Like I said.. the earlier "non english" versions were more enlightening... but King James got so tired of the Bible being hidden to the common man that he had a version made that all could understand.

Unfortunately, many of the the newer versions purposely leave out themes and even "miss" scriptures and completely skip them. The NIV is scary like that.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ May 3 2006, 07:13 PM) [snapback]249467[/snapback]</div>

Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/a...le/0_0_0/evo_02

Well if you have evidence of this

You will undoubtedly be christened the greatest Evolutionist there ever was because other than one or two fossil’s within the huge gaps that scientist have noted, there is absolutely no evidence of this, period.

Speaking of circular reasoning read this. . .

The most widely-used method for determining the age of fossils is to date them by the "known age" of the rock strata in which they are found. On the other hand, the most widely-used method for determining the age of the rock strata is to date them by the "known age" of the fossils they contain. This is an outrageous case of circular reasoning, and geologists are well aware of the problem. J.E. O'Rourke, for example, concedes:

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results" (American Journal of Science, 1976, 276:51).



Wildkow

 

ah yes. more 30-year-old quotes.

yep, that's exactly how we live today and we are working with exactly the same data set now as we were back then.

science has made no progress in over 30 years. sure.

why can't you guys quote something current? oh i know, because there's nothing you want to hear in current literature!

 

Not.

 

Then again, there ARE plenty of well documented medical, and other, "miracles" that have occurred....

h34r:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ May 8 2006, 07:11 AM) [snapback]251422[/snapback]</div>

Knowledge does increase and improve over time but principles ususally degrade over time.
It appears he is talking about thier tendency to ignore the necessity to explain and understand how the puzzle fits together as long as they are finding pieces.

Just a simple statement of tendencies, principle and character, which in most cases tells more than the facts they find.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Randy @ May 7 2006, 04:49 PM) [snapback]251204[/snapback]</div>

*Sigh* ... I was using the one I had handy ... the New King James Version. Here's the same passage from Genesis 2 (I really hate to quote scripture wholesale like this, as I think it simply turns people off, but at least the anti-faith folks can get a quick view into a dissenting account of creation right from the book without having to actually go and find a Bible somewhere):

Reading that LITERALLY, it contradicts exactly what we were told in the first chapter of Genesis. The story has changed, because in this version, Adam is created from the dust of the earth with God breathing into his nostrils (verse 7) clearly BEFORE the animals of the field are created out of the same earth (verse 19). The LITERAL order of creation in this account is plants-man-animals, not plants-animals-man as in chapter 1.

Or do you simply have LITERAL interpetation rules for chapter 1 that don't apply to chapter 2?