Darwin's theory

Frank Bullitt

catallus wrote: »

I'd say you'd benefit greatly from a theological education.

Your pat dismissal of the more thoughtful posters here is coming across as uncouth.

I've learned more from free thinking and doubt than any theological education or discussion could ever give, why? The pure lack of evidence for anything from the faith based community.

Its called faith because its not knowledge.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

God was still the one killing them though.

... only because they had become irredeemably corrupted.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

... only because they had become irredeemably corrupted.

According to god. Who was also the one doing the killing. Do you not see a problem with this?

Skylinehead

J C wrote: »

... only because they had become irredeemably corrupted.

Infants? Seems a bit harsh no?

J C

Gintonious wrote: »

I've learned more from free thinking and doubt than any theological education or discussion could ever give, why? The pure lack of evidence for anything from the faith based community.

Its called faith because its not knowledge.

... nothing wrong with free thinking provided its genuinely free and thinking.

Squeedily Spooch

J C wrote: »

... all of the deaths you speak of ... and all of the other deaths down the millennia are a direct result of Satan's actions in causing the Fall ... so Satan bears full moral responsibility along with Adam and Eve for everything you say and more.
... not that this will worry him too much.

So because two people used their free will (given to them by God) to think for themselves, all of mankind is forever doomed to die. And this is still a loving God?

The abusive relationship comparison earlier was spot on. "I made you, with the ability to think freely. Now use that free thinking to do something I told you not to (but knew your would anyway) now I'll eternally damn all your descendants until I send myself as my son to "sacrifice" himself (for a long weekend) and you all bow down to me for all eternity."

That's Christianity in a nutshell, and it's mental.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

According to god. Who was also the one doing the killing. Do you not see a problem with this?

With a person, yes ... but not with an omniscient God acting Himself.

Squeedily Spooch

J C wrote: »

... only because they had become irredeemably corrupted.

So why not just start over? make two new people without free will who wouldn't reject his love and then spare all the time spent daming people and murdering infants throughout history. He is omnipotent after all? He can create the entire universe but two people annoy him and he can't just start over?

Frank Bullitt

J C wrote: »

... nothing wrong with free thinking provided its genuinely free and thinking.

And on what basis would it not be free then? Perhaps when you adhere to the teachings of a religion maybe? I totally agree.

Capt'n Midnight

J C wrote: »

It goes to show that people of faith, like myself, do observe the evidence objectively and do make logical reasoned conclusions based on it ... without engaging in emotional name-calling outbursts, like those from the Atheists on this thread.

Pray, do tell, what opinions have you ever changed based on evidence ??

Dravokivich

"Darwin's Theroy, " darwin is the roy what exactly? Over 900 posts and this vital question still goes unanswered!

J C

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

So because two people used their free will (given to them by God) to think for themselves, all of mankind is forever doomed to die. And this is still a loving God?

God warned Adam and Eve to not side with Satan's mixture of good and evil ... thereby allowing evil to enter the physical Universe. He warned them that death would follow if they did this.

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

The abusive relationship comparison earlier was spot on. "I made you, with the ability to think freely. Now use that free thinking to do something I told you not to (but knew your would anyway) now I'll eternally damn all your descendants until I send myself as my son to "sacrifice" himself (for a long weekend) and you all bow down to me for all eternity."

It's a bit like the current world ... we are free to obey or not to obey laws ... and we must take the consequences of punishment or reward when we dis-obey / obey the laws.
This doesn't interfere with our freedom.

God is where justice and mercy meets ... and where He grants mercy, justice demands retribution ... and this was provided by God humbling Himself to become a Man and dying the most painful death imaginable in atonement for all our sins.

endacl

As an aside, isn't this thread approaching something of a record for an 'in after hours but should really be in A&A I'm surprised it hasn't been locked yet' thread?

I for one am rather disappointed the OP hasn't put in an appearance since.

J C

Dravokivich wrote: »

"Darwin's Theroy, " darwin is the roy what exactly? Over 900 posts and this vital question still goes unanswered!

Good question.

endacl

Oh. Sorry. Forgot to add...

JC? Just out of interest. What's your background in the field? Do you have qualifications? If so, what sort? Nothing too specific. For example, my degree is in music. Luckily, I'm not identifiable from that one piece of information alone...

Isn't it odd. A music graduate who 'gets' evolution? One would imagine a scientist would!

smcgiff

endacl wrote: »

For example, my degree is in music.

Oh, you're THAT endacl. Of the Clondalkin endacl's? :pac:

Calibos

For any reader thinking that after a few days and 62 pages there could be an end in sight for this thread, let me dispel that notion. JC has been repeating the same BS over and over in a thread in the A&A forum for................Nine..........years now.

J C

smcgiff wrote: »

And of course the Egyptians were famous for keeping records of officials from the pharaoh to minor officers, so someone as famous as the Governor of Egypt would surely have been recorded.

Where will I find such evidence, which will surely quieten those that think the bible is fantasy similar to Fionn mac Cumhaill's adventures.

Quote:-
"The events narrated in the Joseph Story, Genesis 37-50, have long been a favorite topic of investigation for both Biblical scholars and those Egyptologists with an interest in the Old Testament. No reference to Joseph has turned up in Egyptian sources, but given the relative paucity of information about Egyptian officials before the New Kingdom and the lack of consensus regarding Joseph's Egyptian name, this should not surprise us."

Egyptian chronologies are notoriously gappy and unreliable (emphasis mine):-
Quote:-
Peter James and four other scholars published the book Centuries of Darkness.
They claim that the dates of Egyptian dynasties need to be reduced by hundreds of years, specifically Dynasties 21–24. Dr Colin Renfrew, professor of archaeology at Cambridge University, wrote a foreword to this book:
"This disquieting book draws attention … to a crucial period in world history, and to the very shaky nature of the dating, the whole chronological framework, upon which our current interpretations rest…the existing chronologies for that crucial phase in human history are in error by several centuries, and that, in consequence, history will have to be rewritten."

Sir Alan Gardiner, an authority on Egyptian history, admits to the inherent problems surrounding Egyptian chronology:
"Even when full use has been made of the king lists and of such subsidiary sources as have survived, the indispensable dynastic framework of Egyptian history shows lamentable gaps and many a doubtful attribution …What is proudly advertised as Egyptian history is merely a collection of rags and tatters."

Capt'n Midnight

J C wrote: »

Creation Science remains a 'love that dare not speak its name' ... or identify itself ... if the Creationist wants to remain employable.'

Creation "science"

You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means.


Doing science doesn't just mean cataloguing stuff, it means trying to explain it as well , and explain it by means of theories that make testable predictions.

There's a lovely example of the theory of ichthyosaurs supposedly biting holes in ammonite shells. Until a six year old pointed out that they'd crush the shells rather than leave holes in them. Lots of egg on faces and another theory bites the dust.


What testable predictions has creation "science" made ?

Defender OF Faith

I leave this thread for a while and come back to see the arguments have moved from homosexuality to God & Christianity this became a rather multi-intellectual thread

Doctor Jimbob

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Creation "science"

You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means.


Doing science doesn't just mean cataloguing stuff, it means trying to explain it as well , and explain it by means of theories that make testable predictions.

There's a lovely example of the theory of ichthyosaurs supposedly biting holes in ammonite shells. Until a six year old pointed out that they'd crush the shells rather than leave holes in them. Lots of egg on faces and another theory bites the dust.


What testable predictions has creation "science" made ?

He's going to completely ignore your actual point, focus on the part that a 6 year old disproved a scientific theory, and use that to infer all theories are just as bad.

J C

endacl wrote: »

Oh. Sorry. Forgot to add...

JC? Just out of interest. What's your background in the field? Do you have qualifications? If so, what sort? Nothing too specific. For example, my degree is in music. Luckily, I'm not identifiable from that one piece of information alone...

Isn't it odd. A music graduate who 'gets' evolution? One would imagine a scientist would!

"getting Evolution" ... and scientifically understanding it are two totally different phenomena.:)

smcgiff

J C wrote: »

Quote:-
"The events narrated in the Joseph Story, Genesis 37-50, have long been a favorite topic of investigation for both Biblical scholars and those Egyptologists with an interest in the Old Testament. No reference to Joseph has turned up in Egyptian sources, but given the relative paucity of information about Egyptian officials before the New Kingdom and the lack of consensus regarding Joseph's Egyptian name, this should not surprise us."

Egyptian chronologies are notoriously gappy and unreliable (emphasis mine):-
Quote:-
Peter James and four other scholars published the book Centuries of Darkness.
They claim that the dates of Egyptian dynasties need to be reduced by hundreds of years, specifically Dynasties 21–24. Dr Colin Renfrew, professor of archaeology at Cambridge University, wrote a foreword to this book:
"This disquieting book draws attention … to a crucial period in world history, and to the very shaky nature of the dating, the whole chronological framework, upon which our current interpretations rest…the existing chronologies for that crucial phase in human history are in error by several centuries, and that, in consequence, history will have to be rewritten."

Sir Alan Gardiner, an authority on Egyptian history, admits to the inherent problems surrounding Egyptian chronology:
"Even when full use has been made of the king lists and of such subsidiary sources as have survived, the indispensable dynastic framework of Egyptian history shows lamentable gaps and many a doubtful attribution …What is proudly advertised as Egyptian history is merely a collection of rags and tatters."

Considering they can pretty much name the Pharaoh going back to close to the start of time per Creationists then their level of records is very impressive. You'd think a Governor of Egypt would be note worthy.

Also, Joseph was said to have died not long after he was a hundred, so well after the time of the much earlier "purer" ancients that lived close to a thousand years. So Joseph would be relatively recent going by creationist beliefs. So, why no evidence of this Governor of Egypt?

namloc1980

J C wrote: »

"getting Evolution" ... and scientifically understanding it are two totally different phenomena.:)

Indeed. Neither of which you have been able to grasp.

PopePalpatine

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

Do you have John Waters brand word of the day toilet paper you consult before your inane ramblings?

This is why I'm convinced catallus is a troll, it's ONLY in threads concerning religion where he suddenly finds www.thesaurus.com.

kingchess

kingchess wrote: »

I wonder how many scientists who are not followers of the bible/koran believe in Creation theory??are there any experts who believe that theory who are members of ,for example, the hindu faith,or of any other faith??

sorry to butt in but does anyone know ???-maybe J C???

J C

smcgiff wrote: »

Considering they can pretty much name the Pharaoh going back to close to the start of time per Creationists then their level of records is very impressive. You'd think a Governor of Egypt would be note worthy.

Also, Joseph was said to have died not long after he was a hundred, so well after the time of the much earlier "purer" ancients that lived close to a thousand years. So Joseph would be relatively recent going by creationist beliefs. So, why no evidence of this Governor of Egypt?

I have answered this already.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92584778&postcount=920

smcgiff

J C wrote: »

I have answered this already.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92584778&postcount=920

And I pointed out they have named all the Pharaoh's going back in time and therefore it is not so patchy as you'd like to think.

endacl

smcgiff wrote: »

Oh, you're THAT endacl. Of the Clondalkin endacl's? :pac:

!

Periodically! I'm intrigued. We've met?

Pm?

smcgiff

endacl wrote: »

!

Periodically! I'm intrigued. We've met?

Pm?

Sorry, I couldn't possibly make contact. Considering your family were involved in THAT scandal. Terrible business.