|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 46,098 Likes: 6
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 46,098 Likes: 6 |
Well sport, religion has always been at its core man's attempt to explain how we got here. That's fairly obvious.
So your question makes no sense. There's a surprise.
A wise man is frequently humbled.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,651 Likes: 1 |
Well sport, religion has always been at its core man's attempt to explain how we got here. That's fairly obvious.
So your question makes no sense. There's a surprise. Whatever stories man has used in an attempt to explain the world and life in ancient times is not necessarily the same as an actual evidence based explanation for these things as in science....Chief.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,097
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,097 |
.. As for JPL, I think he is a quack.. Nope not even. You're still lost in fairyland. First, JPL is not a "he." It's the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. That's the part that launches deep space probes.. Ringo can't help it, people with Gods have a habit of personifying entities.
How would illiterate superstitious Middle East peasants from thousands of years ago view faith as being defined by?
you know before hyper convoluted Catholic theologians got into the game?
How complex -and in-depth does faith have to be?
Probably as their rabbi told them. probably? so you don't know what faith was based on back then, is the faith of illiterate superstitious peasant Christians around the time of Jesus different to christians of today?
-Bulletproof and Waterproof don't mean Idiotproof.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
This is precisely why evolution is a "theory" in the dictionary definition because it never has and never will demonstrate repeatedly the purely materialistic spontaneous generation of life or the simultaneous development of all 30+ fine tuned mechanisms required for life. If the hypothesis has no scientific way to get started (it isn't taking us anywhere scientific), it certainly cannot be demonstrated, and therefore it is relegated to the simple dictionary definition of (non-scientific) theory i.e. an unproven assumption. This is why we insist and will continue to insist on the typical dictionary definition because not only is it unproven ... it is also both unscientific and illogical.
Science isn't done on 'dictionary definitions' - dictionary meanings reflect the common usage of words, which may be used in multiple ways and have multiple meanings. So it's false to assign a meaning to something where it doesn't belong. That would be the fallacy of equivocation. The word 'theory' in science has a specific meaning. Well you walked right into this one ... You are giving dictionary definitions all the time regarding biblical words and not taking context, logic, or original languages into consideration. Now when I deliberately do the same thing you have done continuously you want to object. Thanks for making this very easy to show your double standards. However the difference in these two cases is that the dictionary definition would apply to a theory which is an unproven assumption i.e. macro evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
Fossils of land animals are scarcer than those of plants. In order to become fossilized, animals must die in a watery environment and become buried in the mud and silt. Because of this requirement most land creatures never get the chance to become fossilized unless they die next to a lake or stream. http://scienceviews.com/dinosaurs/fossilformation.html In order to create a fossil record that comes close to duplicating what we have--we need to bury the fossils rapidly in a watery environment before they decay. For this to happen on a large scale there needs to be a massive water catastrophe. Millions of years are not required for a massive fossil grave yard but a water catastrophe is. And there needs to be an event which shepherds the animals together into one location. It was admitted that fossils are forming today--which is true with the right conditions--which certainly means we don't need millions of years to create fossils. Explaining your misconceptions about fossils grows very tiresome. It's like explaining calculus to third grade kids. Why don't you take a few days off and visit a natural history museum? There is an excellent one in Pittsburgh and (I assume) in other large cities in your state as well. Then you will know why there wasn't any world wide flood. I go there to those occasionally and find myself amused at the attempts to pass this off as science. It's even more entertaining if I can engage someone dubbed an expert in conversation about it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
These things go sideways pretty quickly.
From my perspective Religion is not faith, faith is not something you can force on another , if you are feeling pressured from it , you either are not open at the time or the messanger is false
Nothing explains human consciousness , our ability to examine ourselves . So how did thought begin?
It is a fair question Faith as defined as a belief held without the support of evidence is faith regardless of anyone's perspective. Thought, as the evidence tells us, is an electrochemical activity of a brain, which can be altered chemically and with the application of current to brain regions....producing fear, love, anxiety, involuntary movements, etc, (Delgado, et al). I already addressed the definition of faith as defined by the original Webster definition and the meaning of it in Greek--citing a lexicon. The faith you describe is an evolutionist's faith and not a biblical faith. To have faith essentially means the hope of something being true without evidence. It may or may not be true, but there is no way to know until confirmed. Keep common usage, multiple meanings in common usage, blanket usage and the fallacy of equivocation in mind. From Merriam Webster; faithb(1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return ''faith almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof. an unshakable faith in God credence suggests intellectual assent without implying anything about grounds for assent'' And again you resort to a contemporary dictionary for a modern definition of a word that comes from and which definition was derived from -- classical but more particularly from Koine Greek. You want to use a dictionary whenever it suits you except when it comes to defining the word "theory." can you not see how illogical that is?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,742 Likes: 20
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,742 Likes: 20 |
And there's probably a few like me wondering what the fuss is about, finding evolution and religion not incompatible, If life merges from complex chemical interaction and energy input under the right conditions and evolves thereafter, what need is the for religion as an explanation? None. Faith isn't based on proof of God's existence or necessity.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
Do you have a link to his peer reviewed journal article on this subject in the Journal Nature?
 Peer reviews do not establish truth. Truth can only be discovered--it cannot be created. It is the MO of the evolutionary world not to peer review anything coming from a theistic perspective so as not to give any recognition for the potential exposure of the falsehoods of macro evolution. Then these guys say, we don't have any peer reviews on this topic so we can safely assume it is not science. These are maneuvers that leftists have used for generations.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
[quote=MILES58][quote=Thunderstick]
I carefully chose my wording and used these terms--theism--morality--equality--religious liberty. I did not say that any particular religion should be state established and would be opposed to that--because that inevitably leads to another form of suppression. What I promoted is exactly what our founders promoted. Do you agree with the founding principles of our country--All men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights? You cannot form a society on an amoral foundation or you will have an amoral and immoral society.
As bad as all the religious persecution has been, and it has been horrible, societies founded on atheism or evolution or the two in combination have been exponentially worse in their suppression and persecution.
.
Name a society that is or was based on evolution? Name a society that is or was based on atheism? There have been societies that have represses religion, but that is not atheism. Karl Marx said "Religion is the opium of the people".[1] Marx also stated: "Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."[2] Vladimir Lenin similarly wrote regarding atheism and Communism: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."[3] Friedrich Engels wrote of atheistic evolutionism and Communism: "Just as Darwin discovered the law of development of organic nature, so Marx discovered law of development of human history."[4] In 1955, Chinese Communist leader Zhou Enlai declared, "We Communists are atheists".[5] In 2014, the Communist Party of China reaffirmed that members of their party must be atheists.[6] See also: China and atheism In 2016, the International Business Times reported: “ A senior Chinese advisor on religious affairs has said the country should promote atheism throughout society, in remarks that appear to reflect a deepening campaign to reinforce traditional Marxist values in China — and could add to concern about official attitudes among believers in the country’s five officially recognized religions.[7] ” In 2014, the New American website indicated: “ The Communist Party of China (CPC) is letting its members know that the party’s official adherence to militant atheism has not changed; Party members are not allowed to be Christians, or to hold any other religious beliefs. That is the clear message sent by a top Party official in an editorial published on November 14 in the Global Times, the international version of People’s Daily, the official newspaper and mouthpiece of the CPC.[8] 1. Marx, Karl. 1976. Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Marx-Engels Collected Works, vol. 3. New York. 2. Marx, Karl. Private Property and Communism, 1844. 3. Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich. The Attitude of the Workers' Party to Religion, 1909. 4. Engels, Friedrich. "Karl Marx's Funeral", Marx-Engels Collected Works, vol. 24, p. 467. 5. Noebel, David, The Battle for Truth, Harvest House, 2001. 6. China’s Communist Party Reaffirms Marxism, Maoism, Atheism, New American, 2014 7. China's Communist Party Bans Believers, Doubles Down On Atheism 8. Senior Chinese Religious Advisor Calls For Promotion Of Atheism In Society, International Business Times Your post is primarily about communism and atheism. Atheism and evolution are not exclusive except for those limited to a literal interpretation of the Bible. Leftism--Communism--atheism--evolutionary theory all walk hand in hand. While not all atheists are communists, all communists are atheists. Both atheists and communists espouse the evolutionary theory. Theism is the bulwark against all leftist agendas because you cannot be a leftist and a theist.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
So to summarize this thread to date, it looks like the evolutionists have won the debate with the overwhelming abundance of evidence and logic, but the creationists haven't conceded and have attempted diversionary tactics to include the consideration of unfavorable political persuasion as the hallmark of the infidel clan.
Let me know if I got this wrong or not.... Evolutionary theory has not even been able to get a spontaneous start on this thread so its obviously not going anywhere scientific. Additionally it is not an innocuous theory--it is the root and spawn of leftism. You are welcome to prove me wrong to illustrate how significant leftism of any type did not herald Darwin's theories.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,864
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,864 |
First I am positive Russell Humphries knows a lot more about astronomy and astrophysics than you.
First of all, Russell Humphreys (you spelled it wrong) is not a real scientist. He is employed by the Creation Science Institute. I cannot find any peer reviewed research paper he has ever published. Nor any legitimate cientist not employed by the same bunch who agrees with thim. He's a quack. Second, his theories have been refuted by legitimate scientists. You would not understand the basic reasons, except possibly the one easily refuted by JPL. You can read that one in Wikipedia. JPL has real scientists. They don't believe in talking snakes either. You're telling me his credentials are not real? What school did he get his degrees from, then? As for JPL, I think he is a quack. We are now even. Nope not even. You're still lost in fairyland. First, JPL is not a "he." It's the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. That's the part that launches deep space probes. NASA thinks Humphries is a quack. Second, just because one has a physics degree does not make one knowledgeable about cosmology. Most physicists spend their lives testing different metals for GE. Third, has Humphries ever submitted a paper to a peer reviewed scientific journal like "Nature?" Fourth, does he even belong to or attend the IAU? That makes it four to zero for my side and against creationism. Winning arguments against you on this subject is like stealing candy from a baby. Since you don't agree with him he's a quack? That's good. Since Obama turned NASA into a Muzzie organization it has no credibility to me.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation."
Everyday Hunter
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,864
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,864 |
So to summarize this thread to date, it looks like the evolutionists have won the debate with the overwhelming abundance of evidence and logic, but the creationists haven't conceded and have attempted diversionary tactics to include the consideration of unfavorable political persuasion as the hallmark of the infidel clan.
Let me know if I got this wrong or not.... So to summarize this thread to date, it looks like the creationists have won the debate with the overwhelming abundance of evidence and logic, but the evolutionists haven't conceded and have attempted diversionary tactics to include the consideration of unfavorable political persuasion as the hallmark of the infidel clan. Let me know if I got this wrong or not...
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation."
Everyday Hunter
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 4,354
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 4,354 |
So to summarize this thread to date, it looks like the evolutionists have won the debate with the overwhelming abundance of evidence and logic, but the creationists haven't conceded and have attempted diversionary tactics to include the consideration of unfavorable political persuasion as the hallmark of the infidel clan.
Let me know if I got this wrong or not.... So to summarize this thread to date, it looks like the creationists have won the debate with the overwhelming abundance of evidence and logic, but the evolutionists haven't conceded and have attempted diversionary tactics to include the consideration of unfavorable political persuasion as the hallmark of the infidel clan. Let me know if I got this wrong or not... Yup. You got it wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,864
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,864 |
And there's probably a few like me wondering what the fuss is about, finding evolution and religion not incompatible, If life merges from complex chemical interaction and energy input under the right conditions and evolves thereafter, what need is the for religion as an explanation? Here's the problem with you conjecture. For about 60 - 70 years thousands of intelligent people have tried to get chemicals to produce life and failed. What they have proven is life can only come from life. If intelligence can't do it chance can't. Therefore the whole evolutionary faith Paradigm is built on blind faith.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation."
Everyday Hunter
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 4,354
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 4,354 |
So to summarize this thread to date, it looks like the evolutionists have won the debate with the overwhelming abundance of evidence and logic, but the creationists haven't conceded and have attempted diversionary tactics to include the consideration of unfavorable political persuasion as the hallmark of the infidel clan.
Let me know if I got this wrong or not.... Evolutionary theory has not even been able to get a spontaneous start on this thread so its obviously not going anywhere scientific. Additionally it is not an innocuous theory--it is the root and spawn of leftism. You are welcome to prove me wrong to illustrate how significant leftism of any type did not herald Darwin's theories. If you understood even the first thing about evolution, you would realize that there are direct parallels between capitalism and natural selection. You would know that both the economics of capitalism and evolutionary stable strategies are essentially the same math and that economists and evolutionary biologists have been stealing mathematics from each other for decades. You would also understand that socialism has a form of mathematics that parallels a form of group selection that has been shown NOT to function evolutionarily. Thus, reality is EXACTLY the opposite of what you claim. Why you insist on simply making things up is beyond me, but between you and Ringman, I don't know which is most dishonest or stupid.
Last edited by LeroyBeans; 08/27/19.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,742 Likes: 20
Campfire Sage
|
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,742 Likes: 20 |
So to summarize this thread to date, it looks like the evolutionists have won the debate with the overwhelming abundance of evidence and logic, but the creationists haven't conceded and have attempted diversionary tactics to include the consideration of unfavorable political persuasion as the hallmark of the infidel clan.
Let me know if I got this wrong or not.... Evolutionary theory has not even been able to get a spontaneous start on this thread so its obviously not going anywhere scientific. Additionally it is not an innocuous theory--it is the root and spawn of leftism. You are welcome to prove me wrong to illustrate how significant leftism of any type did not herald Darwin's theories. To this extent, you are correct, but not in the way you think. The left promotes certain viewpoints because they believe them to be destructive to existing Christian order and civilization, so they promoted psychoanalytic theory when it first came out. They promote Cultural Marxism, too, for the same reason. They promote economic collectivism for the same reason. They promote the LGBTQ Cross Dressing lifestyle for the same reason. And they promote evolution theory for the same reason, i.e., they believe it to be destructive to the existing, Christian, order and civilization. That they promote it, however, even for nefarious reasons, doesn't make it false. Things are either true or false on their own merits.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 11,505
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 11,505 |
[For about 60 - 70 years thousands of intelligent people have tried to get chemicals to produce life and failed. What they have proven is
life can only come from life. If intelligence can't do it chance can't. Therefore the whole evolutionary faith Paradigm is built on blind faith.
You don't seem to be very intelligent, and maybe can't read well. As has been posted MANY TIMES, we do not know (yet) how life first emerged from lifeless chemicals. For all we know, an old guy in a night gown and an unkempt white beard, flying around in the air or sitting on a cloud, did it by magic. But we DO KNOW that, after life emerged (however that happened) it EVOLVED and continues to evolve. Period. And no, I do not believe that Humphries is a quack because I don't agree with him. I believe he is a quack because he does not belong to one scientific society and has never published a scientific paper in a real journal. You remind me of the church fathers around 1600, who refused to look through Galileo's telescope because they would see how the solar system really was. One final point: YOU think that because you have found ONE so-called physicist that agrees with your load of fairy tales that he must be right and the THJOUSANDS who believe in evolution are wrong. What if I could find ONE Christian who believes that Genesis is a load of myths? Hmmm?
Don't blame me. I voted for Trump.
Democrats would burn this country to the ground, if they could rule over the ashes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280 |
So to summarize this thread to date, it looks like the evolutionists have won the debate with the overwhelming abundance of evidence and logic, but the creationists haven't conceded and have attempted diversionary tactics to include the consideration of unfavorable political persuasion as the hallmark of the infidel clan.
Let me know if I got this wrong or not.... So to summarize this thread to date, it looks like the creationists have won the debate with the overwhelming abundance of evidence and logic, but the evolutionists haven't conceded and have attempted diversionary tactics to include the consideration of unfavorable political persuasion as the hallmark of the infidel clan. Let me know if I got this wrong or not... Yup. You got it wrong. Nope, he got it right. The claimed transitional forms in the fossil record were shown to be “not transitional” and no other credible transitional forms were noted. Where are the transitional forms? The evolutionary theorists can only come up increasingly stupid explanations for the embarrassing lack of fossil proof of evolution. The horse evolution nonsense was rebutted by statements of other evolutionists. Mark it down as mass hysteria and caving in to peer pressure by other “scientists.” Kinda the current scientific bias in support of global warming. Few.... if any ....money hungry university researcher will dare challenge the status quo for fear of being laughed at, ostracized and denied grant money. ..... Lemmings, self serving ones at that. Some out there cling to fruit fly mutations and peppered moths changes as proof of evolution. Only those that do not have a clue about genetics would be fooled by these claims. Oh, and if you want a good laugh, take a look at the contortions the evolutionist goes through trying to explain how the first living cell came into being, Seem some have give up and now are pointing to the earth being “seeded” by meteorites or aliens. Nope, evolution is a myth.... men going mad in herds.
Last edited by TF49; 08/27/19. Reason: Spel
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 16,554
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 16,554 |
is the faith of illiterate superstitious peasant Christians around the time of Jesus different to christians of today? A little presumptuous and arrogant there, aren't we? People of the time were not stupid idiots, witness the Roman empire, Commerce existed across nations. Jews studied the scripture. Jesus as a child discussed the sacred Jewish texts. And yes, if you're not locked into sola scriptura the traditions of people of the time of Jesus are acknowledged (so far as they compliment the bible). They were there and heard Him and the apostles. It would be naive to think everything got written down in the bible.
The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh
Which explains a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,994
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,994 |
So to summarize this thread to date, it looks like the evolutionists have won the debate with the overwhelming abundance of evidence and logic, but the creationists haven't conceded and have attempted diversionary tactics to include the consideration of unfavorable political persuasion as the hallmark of the infidel clan.
Let me know if I got this wrong or not.... So to summarize this thread to date, it looks like the creationists have won the debate with the overwhelming abundance of evidence and logic, but the evolutionists haven't conceded and have attempted diversionary tactics to include the consideration of unfavorable political persuasion as the hallmark of the infidel clan. Let me know if I got this wrong or not... Yup. You got it wrong. Nope, he got it right. The claimed transitional forms in the fossil record were shown to be “not transitional” and no other credible transitional forms were noted. Where are the transitional forms? The evolutionary theorists can only come up increasingly stupid explanations for the embarrassing lack of fossil proof of evolution. The horse evolution nonsense was rebutted by statements of other evolutionists. Mark it down as mass hysteria and caving in to peer pressure by other “scientists.” Kinda the current scientific bias in support of global warming. Few.... if any ....money hungry university researcher will dare challenge the status quo for fear of being laughed at, ostracized and denied grant money. ..... Lemmings, self serving ones at that. Some out there cling to fruit fly mutations and peppered moths changes as proof of evolution. Only those that do not have a clue about genetics would be fooled by these claims. Oh, and if you want a good laugh, take a look at the contortions the evolutionist goes through trying to explain how the first living cell came into being, Seem some have give up and now are pointing to the earth being “seeded” by meteorites or aliens. Nope, evolution is a myth.... men going mad in herds. You could not be more wrong. Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms. There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time. Transitional forms - Understanding Evolution https://evolution.berkeley.edu › evolibrary › article › lines_03 Nonetheless, these transitional fossils serve as evidence to Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection as conserved traits are proven to survive the test of time. This also supports evolution in a way that is shows gradual change in traits of species over generations due to change in living conditions. How do transitional fossils support the theory of evolution? | eNotes https://www.enotes.com › homework-help › how-do-transitional-fossils-supp... Misconception: “Gaps in the fossil record disprove evolution.” ... Lots of organisms don't fossilize well and the environmental conditions for forming good fossils are not that common. So, science actually predicts that for many evolutionary changes there will be gaps in the record. Misconceptions: Gaps in the Fossil Record Disprove Evolution https://evolution.berkeley.edu › misconceps › IICgaps
Leo of the Land of Dyr
NRA FOR LIFE
I MISS SARAH
“In Trump We Trust.” Right????
SOMEBODY please tell TRH that Netanyahu NEVER said "Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away."
|
|
|
|
|
422 members (17CalFan, 160user, 1Longbow, 12344mag, 10gaugeman, 10ring1, 37 invisible),
2,063
guests, and
1,106
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,377
Posts18,488,445
Members73,970
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
