Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Comments
-
-
-
StealthRolex wrote: »Oh, so the ESB or whoever supplies the lecky has nothing to do with it? I thought the energy was there all the time but nothing could happen until the energy was let in through the switch.
Guess I've been reading the wrong books on physics and electronics.
What?
Did you read my post? I said switching on the computer supplies it with electrical energy?
What?StealthRolex wrote: »So the sun doesn't use nuclear power. Just gravity?
The nuclear fusion inside a sun is caused initially by gravitational forces, it is the heat from the gravity that causes nuclear fusion to startStealthRolex wrote: »Back on the computer again. Do they just assemble themselves with no design and no designer or does someone figure out and plan how to put them together? The first computer like - did someone put a bunch of components into a box and throw them around until a computer fell together somehow?
You apparently aren't reading my posts at all. I was talking about genetic algorithms which are software, not hardware.
Computer hardware is not self replicating. Computer software can be, and as such can evolve.StealthRolex wrote: »I've kinda figured theat the Earth, sun and eventually life actually resulted from teh big bang already. But what caused the big bang?
How do you know anything caused the big bang? If time began with the big bang and causality requires time then you are asking what caused causality.StealthRolex wrote: »BTW isn't hypothesis and postulation scientific guesswork until there is evidence and proof leading to a theory or the hypothesis is disproven and the next guess comes in to play?
Yes it is. Which is why scientists don't proclaim string theory to be true the way religious people proclaim the bible to be because it "feels right"0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
I'm well able to count to four. Thanks for worrying... and you highlighted four words ... but only counted three ... are not even able to count to four now???:eek:
I am, however, quoting exactly what The Mad Hatter wrote and -- unlike the dishonest and deceitful practices universal amongst creationists -- I haven't changed what he wrote to suit myself.0 -
Creationists don't change what Evolutionists write ... we carefully and exactly quote what they are saying!!!!Originally Posted by The Mad Hatter
It never ceases to amaze me, the inability of creationists to read the next sentence.
Originally Posted by robindch
Three words too many in that sentence.
Originally Posted by J C
... and you highlighted four words ... but only counted three ... are not even able to count to four now???
robindch
I'm well able to count to four. Thanks for worrying
I am, however, quoting exactly what The Mad Hatter wrote and -- unlike the dishonest and deceitful practices universal amongst creationists -- I haven't changed what he wrote to suit myself.
... but your attempted truncation of the Mad Hatter's quote would indeed fundamentally change its meaning!!!
... and the fact remains that you highlighted four words ... but only counted three ... and you would have needed to remove five words to get the Mad Hatter's quote to say what you apparently wanted it to say!!!
... anyway have you nothing to say to save the blushes of Darwinism? ...
... which now stands like an unloved and unfounded orphan on this thread ... with nobody prepared to come to its defense.
... I feel your pain ... and I can see why you don't want to make a bad situation worse by trying to defend Darwinism and failing!!:eek::D
... although I wonder if it is a good idea to just ignore the fact that Darwinism is evidentially and logically 'challenged' to the point of Scientific invalidity ...
... and to just (inaccurately) count words ... and hope that nobody notices!!!:eek::):D0 -
-
Creationists don't change what Evolutionists write ... we carefully and exactly quote what they are saying!!!!
While I wouldn't challenge you on that, two things you did change are...
The post you asked me to address(edited for some reason a day later when you decided to bring it up again???).
and then you changed thisgosplan wrote:God inspired people but he didn't edit the thing.
These both come down to the same thing. Is the Bible the exact message of God and should one take it literally?
I would say no.
into thisJ C wrote:Originally Posted by J C
... all Christians believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God.
gosplan
I would say no.
That's very foolish JC. In the first I'm answering a question I just put to myself but through your own creative editing, I'm suddenly answering you.
You basically just rewrote history
:D
Anyway, pretty busy today so will get to the rest of it tomorrow hopefully.0 -
-
... I basically answered your question to my original posting!!!:D:DYou basically just rewrote history:D
... does this mean that you will provide some evidence for Darwinian Evolution (from Pondkind to Mankind)?Anyway, pretty busy today so will get to the rest of it tomorrow hopefully.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
As in that famously quotation that the creationist Ben Stein quoted at the end of his trash mockumentary, "Expelled"?Creationists don't change what Evolutionists write ... we carefully and exactly quote what they are saying!!!!
Last year, AFAIR, even you yourself were forced to admit -- finally -- that his quotation was disgracefully deceitful. Here's the full extract from Darwin's Descent of Man, with the bit that Stein left out, helpfully left in:
and with the immediately-following paragraph completely omitted:With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
Such intentionally-deceitful quote-chopping is of course, completely dishonest, but as I said above, doing so appears to be normal practice for creationists.Darwin wrote:The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
What the Mad Hatter said -- thanks for demonstrating the point so elegantly for me
... and the fact remains that you highlighted four words ... but only counted three ... and you would have needed to remove five words to get the Mad Hatter's quote to say what you apparently wanted it to say!!!robindch wrote:
Three words too many in that sentence.The Mad Hatter wrote: »It never ceases to amaze me, the inability of creationists to read the next sentence. 0 -
Exactly!
But Christianity depends on Genesis being true, so Darwinism has discredited Christianity. Or rather, has done so in the eyes of those who have believed Darwin's fable. The truth of God stands sure, a rock which breaks all who assault it.
I regard Darwinism as the most sophisticated device ever raised against God; it uses much truth to conceal its central lie. It has seduced even true Christians, persuading them that they can still hold to their Bible and remain in favour with the current scientific consensus. All they have to do is make Genesis a fable and Christ and the apostles limited to the ideas of their time.
Of course that can't be done - and when that reality sinks in, the Christian will return to the Biblical position.
_________________________________________________________________
2 Peter 3:5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
Not entirely true. Much of Darwin's work has been mis-represented much more ignored and "Darwinism" is essentially superseded my modern evolutionary theory.
In terms of describing the evolution and development within a species and the development of new strains of a species, trait inheritance and such like there is no conflict with Genesis. Darwin noticed differences between the same species on different islands and also between their mainland cousins.
Where it went wrong to my mind is that Darwin made some suggestions based on his observations and scientists set out to prove Darwins hypotheses. As you know if you go looking for something you might find it, and theories are designed to fit evidence.
Is Genesis a fable? No it is revealed wisdom.
Can rocks be throw at Darwinism and evolutionary theory? Only if rocks can be thrown at Christianity. The question then becomes which will break first and how big or how many rocks are required.
We both know the answer to that one Where God is concerned never bet on a theory. 0 -
-
-
Yes, I agree.StealthRolex wrote: »Not entirely true. Much of Darwin's work has been mis-represented much more ignored and "Darwinism" is essentially superseded my modern evolutionary theory.
In terms of describing the evolution and development within a species and the development of new strains of a species, trait inheritance and such like there is no conflict with Genesis. Darwin noticed differences between the same species on different islands and also between their mainland cousins.
Where it went wrong to my mind is that Darwin made some suggestions based on his observations and scientists set out to prove Darwins hypotheses. As you know if you go looking for something you might find it, and theories are designed to fit evidence.
Is Genesis a fable? No it is revealed wisdom.
Can rocks be throw at Darwinism and evolutionary theory? Only if rocks can be thrown at Christianity. The question then becomes which will break first and how big or how many rocks are required.
We both know the answer to that one Where God is concerned never bet on a theory.
I used Darwinism as a synonym for molecule to man evolution, not development within Genesis kinds.
_________________________________________________________________
Hebrews 11:4 By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
StealthRolex wrote: »It is relevant if we are discussing the Bible and Creation or how to reconcile the Bible record with history.
Are we though?
If you want to try and convince posters like Wolfsbane and JC they are wrong about their interpretation be my guest, others have tried and failed. It is your funeral. 0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement