I don't understand why people continue to try to debate these things on internet forums. It has never, and will never, go anywhere. The evolutionist side claims that the creationists are ignoring obvious evidence, and the creationsist claim the same about the evolutionists. Each side claims that they know the truth, and that the other side is being ignorant. No one is willing to change their mind, because no one hears what anyone else says. The fact that it's an internet forum and not a personal conversation makes it worse. It's easy to be rude and sarcastic (not that everyone always is) when you're talking to a screen name.
Some people do actually add to the conversation (I've seen MarcUK do it in the past), but when it comes down to it, there is no point. Continue talking if y'all want, but I really don't see the point. If you're really searching for truth, be willing to listen to each side (instead of writing something off before you even see it, like a creationist museum, or a hobbit skeleton). Have a civil conversation with a real person who knows what they're talking about. Look at all of the evidence equally, and don't try to debate it on online forums. It just doesn't work.
I'm not trying to be mean or rude, and I hope I haven't come off that way, but I just thought I'd throw it out there and maybe save some of you time.
It is not a waste of time because not all people fit nicely into any of your categories. A lot of people simply do not know much about the topic and are "undecided".
I realize that not everyone fits into those categories, but it seems as if most do. I was simply throwing out my opinion based on past experience.
For those who don't fit what I described, and those who are "undecided," I'll repeat what I said:
Have a civil conversation with a real person who knows what they're talking about. Look at all of the evidence equally, and don't try to debate it on online forums. It just doesn't work.
This find does nothing to advance evolutionary theory.
It is so funny that any evolutionist would get so riled up about this as to have to say "in your face!" to a creationist when many basic questions are unanswered.
We don't know where they came from or why they were abnormally short and why their faces and skulls were not developed properly. Was it a group of people that genetically passed on common traits (a dwarfism tribe of people?, pygmy folks? Some kind of disease? that ran rampant through a civilization?) basically, we will not know the full truth for a couple of years. But right now to say that this is the missing link or something is not only premature, but foolish. There has been a find of a whole group of people before that seemed to be neandertal, but were really just afflicted with disease.
The creation view is that god made Adam and Eve and a diversity of people came from them. There were also giants in the Bible, etc. something like this would only testify to the diversity of God's creation.
the main thing is to seek the truth, not what you wish the truth was.
This find does nothing to advance evolutionary theory.
It is so funny that any evolutionist would get so riled up about this as to have to say "in your face!" to a creationist when many basic questions are unanswered.
We don't know where they came from or why they were abnormally short and why their faces and skulls were not developed properly. Was it a group of people that genetically passed on common traits (a dwarfism tribe of people?, pygmy folks? Some kind of disease? that ran rampant through a civilization?) basically, we will not know the full truth for a couple of years. But right now to say that this is the missing link or something is not only premature, but foolish. There has been a find of a whole group of people before that seemed to be neandertal, but were really just afflicted with disease.
The creation view is that god made Adam and Eve and a diversity of people came from them. There were also giants in the Bible, etc. something like this would only testify to the diversity of God's creation.
the main thing is to seek the truth, not what you wish the truth was.
I'm curious how one "seeks the truth" regarding biblical explanations for the origins of life.
Read the Bible more? Await divine inspiration? Match up things mentioned in the Bible with possible discoveries, like a check-list? (Oh, giants, that's one for the Bible.....)
A biblical explanation for the origins of life is not a "truth seeking" proposition. It is a "truth stating" proposition. Evidence has nothing to do with it. You either believe what's in the Bible or you don't.
I'm curious how one "seeks the truth" regarding biblical explanations for the origins of life.
Read the Bible more? Await divine inspiration? Match up things mentioned in the Bible with possible discoveries, like a check-list? (Oh, giants, that's one for the Bible.....)
A biblical explanation for the origins of life is not a "truth seeking" proposition. It is a "truth stating" proposition. Evidence has nothing to do with it. You either believe what's in the Bible or you don't.
Seeking the truth is just that. You are automatically trying to rule out the bible as an option of being the truth. Therefore, you are unobjective.
If the Bible is true, the YES you should read the BIBLE MORE!
As far as your stand against matching up discoveries with the Bible, you are advocating against good science. Of course you would take evidence and match it up against a theory to see how it stands up. The only problem with that is that it does not support your view very well. That is no reason to advocate bad science.
The scientific method requires that you do just that. Match it up!
The only problem when matching up discoveries is that the theory of evolution does not match up at all with the evidence. there is ZERO support in the fossil record, in geological findings and in archaelogical findings, while all have ample support for the Bible and also the creation worldview.
The Biblical evidence for the origins of life (and matter) os of course a truth seeking proposition. If you never looked at it, then you would be ignoring the possibility. Therefore, you are only seeking what you want to believe and ignoring any truth to the contrary.
In response to your question, "how one 'seeks the truth' regarding biblical explanations for the origins of life."
You do so by reading the Bible, starting with Genesis chapters 1-3.
Then you can look at what some brilliant scientific minds at answersingenesis.com and icr.org have to say. you can try that for starters. that is of course, only if you care about seeking the truth.
As far as faith being required to believe in the Bible, I totally agree. and at least the same amount of faith is required to believe in the theory of evolution - especially since there is ZERO scientific confirmation of any of its unending theories. in fact these guys can't even get their theories straight. They quote Darwin, but as soon as the flaws with his theories show up, they drop it like a bad habit and move on to something else. But when they need it, they pull out darwin again. Again, not science, just a very paraniod theory that has nothing to stand on, but a wish that God was not real (for whatever reason).
Seeking the truth is just that. You are automatically trying to rule out the bible as an option of being the truth. Therefore, you are unobjective.
If the Bible is true, the YES you should read the BIBLE MORE!
As far as your stand against matching up discoveries with the Bible, you are advocating against good science. Of course you would take evidence and match it up against a theory to see how it stands up. The only problem with that is that it does not support your view very well. That is no reason to advocate bad science.
The scientific method requires that you do just that. Match it up!
The only problem when matching up discoveries is that the theory of evolution does not match up at all with the evidence. there is ZERO support in the fossil record, in geological findings and in archaelogical findings, while all have ample support for the Bible and also the creation worldview.
The Biblical evidence for the origins of life (and matter) os of course a truth seeking proposition. If you never looked at it, then you would be ignoring the possibility. Therefore, you are only seeking what you want to believe and ignoring any truth to the contrary.
In response to your question, "how one 'seeks the truth' regarding biblical explanations for the origins of life."
You do so by reading the Bible, starting with Genesis chapters 1-3.
Then you can look at what some brilliant scientific minds at answersingenesis.com and icr.org have to say. you can try that for starters. that is of course, only if you care about seeking the truth.
As far as faith being required to believe in the Bible, I totally agree. and at least the same amount of faith is required to believe in the theory of evolution - especially since there is ZERO scientific confirmation of any of its unending theories. in fact these guys can't even get their theories straight. They quote Darwin, but as soon as the flaws with his theories show up, they drop it like a bad habit and move on to something else. But when they need it, they pull out darwin again. Again, not science, just a very paraniod theory that has nothing to stand on, but a wish that God was not real (for whatever reason).
When you say you seek the truth you are lying. I know this when you say things like there is zero evidence for evolution, or that the people at the web page you link to have persuasive evidence to support Biblical explanations for the history of the world.
The only way you can possibly believe those things is to be utterly immune to the facts. In order to do that you have to do violence to the very notion of "facts", and the mechanisms by which they are established.
A person who works backward from the assertions in the Bible to support those assertions is not "seeking truth". They are seeking to validate a received world view.
And before you start going on about how that's just the same as evolutionary theory, please note that Darwin did not simply make bald assertions because he felt like it; he based his ideas on observable data and attempted to craft a coherent explanation that accounted for that data. That is seeking truth. It is also seeking truth when, subsequently, other researchers modify or extend those original ideas, in order to better account for the observable data.
If you still don't get the distinction, let me ask you: how often has biblical interpretation been modified to account for new discoveries? I mean, that would make sense, right, if we are "seeking truth"? To change our minds if new evidence comes to light? That's how it works in every other aspect of life.
So do biblical literalists get to change God's plan if they are exposed to new information?
Of course not. There is no "seeking", the truth part is already cast in stone.
And then you have the audacity to use the very thing about science that makes it a useful tool for truth seeking-- it's ability to change theories to better account for what we see and learn-- as evidence of its arbitrariness.
Get back to me when you're allowed to annotate the Bible because they found new fossil evidence in a river valley, and we can talk about "truth seeking".
i like how creationist think there is no scientific evidence for evolution. to prove this (unlike anything else they claim) they cite the fact that there are people who don't believe there is scientific evidence for evolution. i wonder what it's like to be on that roller coaster... probably mind-bogglingly dull...
When you say you seek the truth you are lying. I know this when you say things like there is zero evidence for evolution, or that the people at the web page you link to have persuasive evidence to support Biblical explanations for the history of the world.
The only way you can possibly believe those things is to be utterly immune to the facts. In order to do that you have to do violence to the very notion of "facts", and the mechanisms by which they are established.
A person who works backward from the assertions in the Bible to support those assertions is not "seeking truth". They are seeking to validate a received world view.
And before you start going on about how that's just the same as evolutionary theory, please note that Darwin did not simply make bald assertions because he felt like it; he based his ideas on observable data and attempted to craft a coherent explanation that accounted for that data. That is seeking truth. It is also seeking truth when, subsequently, other researchers modify or extend those original ideas, in order to better account for the observable data.
If you still don't get the distinction, let me ask you: how often has biblical interpretation been modified to account for new discoveries? I mean, that would make sense, right, if we are "seeking truth"? To change our minds if new evidence comes to light? That's how it works in every other aspect of life.
So do biblical literalists get to change God's plan if they are exposed to new information?
Of course not. There is no "seeking", the truth part is already cast in stone.
And then you have the audacity to use the very thing about science that makes it a useful tool for truth seeking-- it's ability to change theories to better account for what we see and learn-- as evidence of its arbitrariness.
Get back to me when you're allowed to annotate the Bible because they found new fossil evidence in a river valley, and we can talk about "truth seeking".
When I say to seek the truth, how am I lying? It seems that you are the one who is holding onto a received world-view. I am lying simply because I see things differently and encourage you to take another look? And lo and behold, because I said actual science and not fairy tales support the biblical view? It seems that you are simply trying to establish a theory that anything related to the Bible is only allowed to be fake or make-believe or ?blind faith?. There is a reason the Bible is the most successful book of all time. That is because it has been attacked more than any other and still stands the test. This is also true of the science in the Bible. That is why the creationists are secure in their world-view while the evolutionists are scratching desperately for any hint of truth to their religion. A pig tooth is found in an old strata of ground and we hear ?AHA! Proof! Whatever. it was a pigs tooth. The next thing you know we hear about ?Lucy?. Again ?AHA!? Whatever. It was a tree-swinging monkey. This junk happens over and over and the evolutionists are proven wrong again and again, yet never want to admit it (kind of like Al Gore). That is not science. That is religious zeal.
When I say seek the truth I mean just that. Instead of going along with the mob mentality like ?well these people believe it, so I will too - hey I watched ?the Land before Time??, look at the facts. I guarantee none of you are doing that. Even the fellow who posted after you. He simply denounces the links I posted to without ever reading anything. If he did, OH NO! He might be challenged to actually have to think for himself! And his world-view just might be shown to be faulty.
Seek the truth. Yet again, I have to explain that when you try to leave the Bible out, by ruling it out as a possibility of being the truth, you are not being objective, but are simply showing religious zeal for your evolutionism. To say someone is not sincere by stating another possibility is absurd.
I will say that I am biased toward the biblical creation world-view. You are biased toward evolution.
There are only two origins models that are plausible. Creation and evolutionism. The latter is the one in jeopardy. You will just have to deal with it.
Coming up with things like ?you are lying when you say ?seek the truth?? just makes you sound childish and irrational.
I have noticed a trend in these comments. Everyone attacks the person, but not the science. Even if I was a horrible criminal mastermind, but I was pointing you to truth, you would be unwise to not at least give it a look. The facts simply and clearly do not support evolutionism. I am open to the possibility, but in my years of life I have never come across anything that stood any sort of scrutiny or time.
As for my personal credibility, for you to say that I am working from backward assertions and then just trying to support them - well you know nothing about me and I don?t really matter in this discussion, but since you brought me up, let me explain some things. When I was in 2nd grade, I learned the theory of evolution. I thought it was weird. It did not seem right, but I accepted it anyway, because it was in a book, and there was this convincing ape-to-man picture and because that is all I was exposed to. One time, my family thought it would be interesting to go to church. We did and we heard about Adam and Eve and the biblical account of Creation. That not only seemed right to my young mind, but then I started wondering why there were two different ideas on the subject. When I got into the 5th grade, I actually started trying to figure it out. Yes, even as a 5th grader. i visited the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego California. I learned a lot. Then I found out that there are these neat things called science journals that I started reading that have all kinds of documentation that never makes it into text books. It was then that I really started seeing the raging war that went on in the field of science and how paranoid the evolution supporters were of how loosely held together that theory is. I went on to read a book called ?Evidence that Demands a Verdict? written by an atheist that went all-out to disprove the Bible and ended up becoming one of its staunchest supporters. I also had taken to the Bible and put my faith in Jesus Christ. In High School I did a Creation vs Evolution debate for my Senior Project and invited a Creation Scientist to be my guest speaker. Of course, all the teachers showed up to hear it and were blown away. Even our sociology teacher who proclaimed himself to be an expert on the subject was speechless and had to admit that the evidence for creation seemed very compelling.
Quote:
?And before you start going on about how that's just the same as evolutionary theory, please note that Darwin did not simply make bald assertions because he felt like it; he based his ideas on observable data and attempted to craft a coherent explanation that accounted for that data. That is seeking truth. It is also seeking truth when, subsequently, other researchers modify or extend those original ideas, in order to better account for the observable data.?
What? Have you not read Origin of the Species?
First of all, about it being the same as evolutionary theory. Well... it is!
Darwin boldly proclaimed that the best cause for the human eye to exist is intelligent design. Then after stating that any idea to the contrary would be absurd, he goes on at length to describe how it possibly could have happened via evolution. He had no observable data other than - THERE WAS AN EYE.
That is a cop out. That is trying to prove his world-view contrary to the evidence in front of him.
Darwin had to admit that the eye looked like it had to be created, yet he still stubbornly tried to come up with an alternative explanation that to this day has yet to show any sign of being proven. That is not a ?better account of observable data?, that is a man trying to defend his belief system in spite of data to the contrary.
Quote:
If you still don't get the distinction, let me ask you: how often has biblical interpretation been modified to account for new discoveries? I mean, that would make sense, right, if we are "seeking truth"? To change our minds if new evidence comes to light? That's how it works in every other aspect of life.
This has happened a long time ago in the Scopes trial. The evolutionists came out with so many versions of their theory that it was impossible to even tell how or if evolution happened. However, evolutionism was not on trial here. Creation was. The creationists supported a strange theory that no creation scientist believes in. It is called the day-age theory where he tried to account for evolutionary theory in order to mix it into the Bible. The two don?t mix. The evolutionists never had to prove anything in that case. The creationist simply did not know what he was getting himself into. He had a different interpretation, but it was not even based on evidence, it was a paranoid response to evolutionary theory.
There will always be some who will change their views to try hold on to their beliefs, look at Darwin for crying out loud. There will be that problem on the creation side too, not because their is something wrong with the creation model, but because people are people.
Howver, biblical interpretation in general has not been modified in light of any evidence, because all the evidence up to this point today seems to support creation. Therefore, those with the creation world-view have no need to modify their beliefs, they are simply encouraged in it.
When new evidence comes up you must reinterpret it. You look at it and see it for what it is. If there is a perfectly plausible explanation for a certain view, then you must accept that. History has shown in every field of science, that the evidence leaves evolutionism completely and totally lacking for any evidence whatsoever.
[QUOTE]
And then you have the audacity to use the very thing about science that makes it a useful tool for truth seeking-- it's ability to change theories to better account for what we see and learn-- as evidence of its arbitrariness.
QUOTE]
The scientific method is a great tool for truth seeking. How is that audacious? I am the only one to have brought real science into this discussion and now I am audacious. That is exactly the problem. People have their feelings hurt when their feelings hurt and they start grasping for straws.
I have given you the scientific method. You are correct in saying that should change theories, which is why evolutionism is NOT science. It is a theory that is not only not supported by the scientific method, but debunked by it.
Science is not arbitrary. evolutionism is.
Seek the truth. Not what you wish it was.
Quote:
Get back to me when you're allowed to annotate the Bible because they found new fossil evidence in a river valley, and we can talk about "truth seeking".
The day we find as much evidence for evolution as we have for creation, I will. Assuming this message board is still here and you and I are alive and there ever will be such things discovered. it has not happened yet, not is it likely to based on historical record.
Just seek the truth. I believe it is in the biblical creation account. I have given many reasons. You have not. There is plenty more and in much more detail that I can share. If you want to just play little games then leave me out of it. However, if you want to engage in intelligent scientific discussion on the merits of both sides in the interest of coming to a clear conclusion, then by all means, come up with some real reasons for evolution and let?s go from there.
Just seek the truth. I believe it is in the biblical creation account. I have given many reasons. You have not. There is plenty more and in much more detail that I can share. If you want to just play little games then leave me out of it. However, if you want to engage in intelligent scientific discussion on the merits of both sides in the interest of coming to a clear conclusion, then by all means, come up with some real reasons for evolution and let?s go from there.
Yawn!
Did you know that when Jonah spent 3 days in the belly of the whale it is an allegory for Jonah being the Sun, the Whale being the Earth, the 3 days being a reference to the amount of time the Sun spends at the winter equinox before it starts its ascention back to the highest point in the sky (which is told by the allegory of the sermon on the mount when the story was re-written to replace older personifications of the Sun - in characters such as Moses and Jonah - with a new figure for the times who was Jesus Christ.
The Jonah story being the theological equivalent of Jesus' burial in the tomb after the crucifixion because this Jesus story relates exactly the same knowledge of the solar cycle - for a different era.
That is the sort of TRUTH in the Bible - a recording of ancient scientific discoveries and knowledge played out as fictional characters in stories and mythmaking - so that the TRUTH was not forgotten amongst the illiterate masses, even if they needed a bit of a kick in the proverbial to wake them from their dozy slumber to appreciate what these stories really mean.
If you've got any intention to seek the truth I would suggest you shut your ignorant trap and go smack yourself in the head with a big dose of it.
Howver, biblical interpretation in general has not been modified in light of any evidence, because all the evidence up to this point today seems to support creation. Therefore, those with the creation world-view have no need to modify their beliefs, they are simply encouraged in it........
The day we find as much evidence for evolution as we have for creation, I will. Assuming this message board is still here and you and I are alive and there ever will be such things discovered. it has not happened yet, not is it likely to based on historical record.......
Just seek the truth. I believe it is in the biblical creation account. I have given many reasons. You have not. There is plenty more and in much more detail that I can share. If you want to just play little games then leave me out of it. However, if you want to engage in intelligent scientific discussion on the merits of both sides in the interest of coming to a clear conclusion, then by all means, come up with some real reasons for evolution and let?s go from there.
Weird. It's like talking to someone from a alternative dimension wherein "evidence" and "proof" have completely different meanings from the home world.
Just as with the global warming "discussions" I'm reminded that it is pointless to go back and forth on the merits when one of the parties involved is using a completely different metric for what the merits might be, and that metric provides no means for substantiation outside of bald assertion.
So I'll just say this: please, please, please anti-science "we'll believe whatever we want" folks: move south of the Mason-Dixon line, secede from the union, and leave the rest of us alone. Have your biblically based "science". Maybe you can turn you sights to things like medical research, and realize that the Bible has no use for these so called "antibiotics" and "prenatal care". When your childhood mortality rates start to skyrocket, surely that will be God's will and you can deal with it accordingly (Pray harder? Burn witches? Up to you).
Have your damn theocracy, already. Maybe once you aren't fired by the satisfactions of "refuting he secularists" you'll notice that theocracies have some major problems with governance, here in the 21st century.
Which is why we'll want free movement over the borders of Jesus Land, because at least some of your citizenry are going to get really unhappy, after the initial exhilaration has worn off.
Especially once you realize that God's Invariant Word, amazingly enough, isn't uniformly agreed upon, even amongst the Godly!
And there won't be any way to resolve that, short of force. You apparently imagine that you are using some version of the scientific method to reach dispassionate conclusions about the nature of the world. Trust me, you're not, as will become quickly evident once dispute arises and you need to sort it out. "All the evidence points to demonic possession as the root of our malaise!" "No, no, the preponderance of proof lies with malaria, which can be cured with certain unguents!" "Demons!" "Unguents!"
I give ya'll a couple of generations before natural selection removes the stupid from our midst.
Did you know that when Jonah spent 3 days in the belly of the whale it is an allegory for Jonah being the Sun, the Whale being the Earth, the 3 days being a reference to the amount of time the Sun spends at the winter equinox before it starts its ascention back to the highest point in the sky (which is told by the allegory of the sermon on the mount when the story was re-written to replace older personifications of the Sun - in characters such as Moses and Jonah - with a new figure for the times who was Jesus Christ.
The Jonah story being the theological equivalent of Jesus' burial in the tomb after the crucifixion because this Jesus story relates exactly the same knowledge of the solar cycle - for a different era.
That is the sort of TRUTH in the Bible - a recording of ancient scientific discoveries and knowledge played out as fictional characters in stories and mythmaking - so that the TRUTH was not forgotten amongst the illiterate masses, even if they needed a bit of a kick in the proverbial to wake them from their dozy slumber to appreciate what these stories really mean.
If you've got any intention to seek the truth I would suggest you shut your ignorant trap and go smack yourself in the head with a big dose of it.
Speaking of ignorance...
It is interesting that you twist the Bible to say some craziness, but you cannot prove what you say. There are allegories in the Bible, but they are clearly called such. The parables of Jesus for example. The other parts are literal history. You are clearly just trying to joke and add confusion. The Bible says none of the things you mention (jonah and whale = sun, earth and such).
You just spout off a wierd take on the Bible. The Jonah story was literal history. Plain and simple. You don't beleive it, so you are forced to expalin it away. That does not make it untrue.
The fact is I was ignorant until I came face to face with the truth of Jesus Christ in the Bible.
All you can say is some thing like "shut your yap". How childish. I guess this thread boils down to the fact that evolution is a supported by a cult of child-minds who refuse to see anything other than a blind belief in their precious god of evolutionism.
This is how these discussions go down all the time. The creation worldview is given and the evolutionists degrade it by avoiding any objective science and getting into a babyish and fairy tale-like babblings on the bible.
If this thread is anything to go by, we can conclude that creation is at the very least a more mature position to take than evolutionism.
.....This is how these discussions go down all the time. The creation worldview is given and the evolutionists degrade it by avoiding any objective science and getting into a babyish and fairy tale-like babblings on the bible.
If this thread is anything to go by, we can conclude that creation is at the very least a more mature position to take than evolutionism.
Weird. It's like talking to someone from a alternative dimension wherein "evidence" and "proof" have completely different meanings from the home world.
Just as with the global warming "discussions" I'm reminded that it is pointless to go back and forth on the merits when one of the parties involved is using a completely different metric for what the merits might be, and that metric provides no means for substantiation outside of bald assertion.
So I'll just say this: please, please, please anti-science "we'll believe whatever we want" folks: move south of the Mason-Dixon line, secede from the union, and leave the rest of us alone. Have your biblically based "science". Maybe you can turn you sights to things like medical research, and realize that the Bible has no use for these so called "antibiotics" and "prenatal care". When your childhood mortality rates start to skyrocket, surely that will be God's will and you can deal with it accordingly (Pray harder? Burn witches? Up to you).
Have your damn theocracy, already. Maybe once you aren't fired by the satisfactions of "refuting he secularists" you'll notice that theocracies have some major problems with governance, here in the 21st century.
Which is why we'll want free movement over the borders of Jesus Land, because at least some of your citizenry are going to get really unhappy, after the initial exhilaration has worn off.
Especially once you realize that God's Invariant Word, amazingly enough, isn't uniformly agreed upon, even amongst the Godly!
And there won't be any way to resolve that, short of force. You apparently imagine that you are using some version of the scientific method to reach dispassionate conclusions about the nature of the world. Trust me, you're not, as will become quickly evident once dispute arises and you need to sort it out. "All the evidence points to demonic possession as the root of our malaise!" "No, no, the preponderance of proof lies with malaria, which can be cured with certain unguents!" "Demons!" "Unguents!"
I give ya'll a couple of generations before natural selection removes the stupid from our midst.
What do you mean? Modern medicine is a wonderful thing. The Bible speaks well of dotors. It is an honorable thing. The apostle Luke (author of Luke and Acts) was a doctor. Where do you get that the Bible is anti-medicine. it is not the case.
Just because some other folks than you look at science and don't accept some theories that have been falsely called science like evolutionism, they have a different definition for science? Surely you did not just try that cop-out. But yes, you did.
By science I mean the exact thing that you should know it to be and one basic thing that all science is to be judged on is the scientific method. i will not apologize for that.
You offer nothing of validity in your statement. You compeletely avoid providing anything of merit concerning the subject of this thread. All you do is say that I am not sceintific and that the Bible is weird (to paraphrase).
Well, certainly there are differences of beliefs amongst Bible believers just as there are amongst evolutionism beleivers. However, since many folks have not studied their Bibles, but feel like they have to say something about it. Unfortunately, you have weird takes on the bible just like you have people with weird takes on anything.
However, when people get down to it and really study, for the most part, they arrive at the same conclusions.
It is interesting that no one here wants to just get down to the science of it all. All you want to do is try to change the definition of science for me and call me an alien and whatever. Why don't you contribute somehting of value? Let's get into the pros and cons of each model. Let's look at what you think proof of evolution is?
The real stupid is the one who attacks anything different than what they want without understanding it. And that about sums up the majority of the posts on this thread. And I say this without trying to insult anyone. You call me stupid, but I don't attack you. I am trying to have us all take a serious look at what we believe and why.
There is an old saying: "If you throw a rock over a fence, the dog that barks loudest is the one that got hit".
With a topic like this, no doubt someone is going to get riled, but let's take that energy and be constructive with it.
It is interesting that you twist the Bible to say some craziness, but you cannot prove what you say. There are allegories in the Bible, but they are clearly called such. The parables of Jesus for example. The other parts are literal history. You are clearly just trying to joke and add confusion. The Bible says none of the things you mention (jonah and whale = sun, earth and such).
You just spout off a wierd take on the Bible. The Jonah story was literal history. Plain and simple. You don't beleive it, so you are forced to expalin it away. That does not make it untrue.
The fact is I was ignorant until I came face to face with the truth of Jesus Christ in the Bible.
All you can say is some thing like "shut your yap". How childish. I guess this thread boils down to the fact that evolution is a supported by a cult of child-minds who refuse to see anything other than a blind belief in their precious god of evolutionism.
This is how these discussions go down all the time. The creation worldview is given and the evolutionists degrade it by avoiding any objective science and getting into a babyish and fairy tale-like babblings on the bible.
If this thread is anything to go by, we can conclude that creation is at the very least a more mature position to take than evolutionism.
I was going to make a strong coffee - but i think i'll grab a beer instead. Fancy a John Smiths?
I think you are lacking in refinement - you are a very angry person, there is no grace and contemplation in your last post. According to Zoroastrian mythlogy, the force of destruction and chaos is Angra Mainyu. I've often wondered if this is a joke. It sounds alot to me like 'Angry man you' - regardless of its pun on words - there is alot to be learned from this. Anger definately comes from a chaotic destructive place within us - even when in your case you feel you are doing the right thing to honour your beliefs. You don't seem to have learned the grace a proper contemplation of Jesus' words would bestow on one of his followers.
You're right, I cannot prove what I say - a wise person would realise that it isn't possible to prove 'anything'. The philosopher Socrates was once declared the wisest man alive, because he knew that he knew nothing. It might be a slightly arrogant thing to say - as obviously i think I know a few things, but it really should be thought about because there is something very fundamental you can learn about objective reality from that statement. Neither of us can 'prove' a damn thing, because we weren't there 2000 years ago.
Bear in mind that its not necessarily the right answer, just an answer and many more are available to someone seeking out truth and knowledge.
Regardless of whether you think thats right or wrong, as neither you or me can prove a damn thing, the wise thing to do is keep it in mind along with all the other answers you could find before you go proclaiming things you have no way of knowing and seek to expand your understanding and knowledge.
I put it to you that every story in the bible has a deeper meaning than what is first learned by simply reading the surface text, and if you wanted to become wise with your years, you could seek out these deeper meanings. Regardless of whether you believe them or not, there is nothing to lose by chosing to expand the base of knowledge you draw from.
Comments
Some people do actually add to the conversation (I've seen MarcUK do it in the past), but when it comes down to it, there is no point. Continue talking if y'all want, but I really don't see the point. If you're really searching for truth, be willing to listen to each side (instead of writing something off before you even see it, like a creationist museum, or a hobbit skeleton). Have a civil conversation with a real person who knows what they're talking about. Look at all of the evidence equally, and don't try to debate it on online forums. It just doesn't work.
I'm not trying to be mean or rude, and I hope I haven't come off that way, but I just thought I'd throw it out there and maybe save some of you time.
For those who don't fit what I described, and those who are "undecided," I'll repeat what I said:
Have a civil conversation with a real person who knows what they're talking about. Look at all of the evidence equally, and don't try to debate it on online forums. It just doesn't work.
It is so funny that any evolutionist would get so riled up about this as to have to say "in your face!" to a creationist when many basic questions are unanswered.
We don't know where they came from or why they were abnormally short and why their faces and skulls were not developed properly. Was it a group of people that genetically passed on common traits (a dwarfism tribe of people?, pygmy folks? Some kind of disease? that ran rampant through a civilization?) basically, we will not know the full truth for a couple of years. But right now to say that this is the missing link or something is not only premature, but foolish. There has been a find of a whole group of people before that seemed to be neandertal, but were really just afflicted with disease.
The creation view is that god made Adam and Eve and a diversity of people came from them. There were also giants in the Bible, etc. something like this would only testify to the diversity of God's creation.
the main thing is to seek the truth, not what you wish the truth was.
This find does nothing to advance evolutionary theory.
It is so funny that any evolutionist would get so riled up about this as to have to say "in your face!" to a creationist when many basic questions are unanswered.
We don't know where they came from or why they were abnormally short and why their faces and skulls were not developed properly. Was it a group of people that genetically passed on common traits (a dwarfism tribe of people?, pygmy folks? Some kind of disease? that ran rampant through a civilization?) basically, we will not know the full truth for a couple of years. But right now to say that this is the missing link or something is not only premature, but foolish. There has been a find of a whole group of people before that seemed to be neandertal, but were really just afflicted with disease.
The creation view is that god made Adam and Eve and a diversity of people came from them. There were also giants in the Bible, etc. something like this would only testify to the diversity of God's creation.
the main thing is to seek the truth, not what you wish the truth was.
I'm curious how one "seeks the truth" regarding biblical explanations for the origins of life.
Read the Bible more? Await divine inspiration? Match up things mentioned in the Bible with possible discoveries, like a check-list? (Oh, giants, that's one for the Bible.....)
A biblical explanation for the origins of life is not a "truth seeking" proposition. It is a "truth stating" proposition. Evidence has nothing to do with it. You either believe what's in the Bible or you don't.
Rich 8)
I'm curious how one "seeks the truth" regarding biblical explanations for the origins of life.
Read the Bible more? Await divine inspiration? Match up things mentioned in the Bible with possible discoveries, like a check-list? (Oh, giants, that's one for the Bible.....)
A biblical explanation for the origins of life is not a "truth seeking" proposition. It is a "truth stating" proposition. Evidence has nothing to do with it. You either believe what's in the Bible or you don't.
Seeking the truth is just that. You are automatically trying to rule out the bible as an option of being the truth. Therefore, you are unobjective.
If the Bible is true, the YES you should read the BIBLE MORE!
As far as your stand against matching up discoveries with the Bible, you are advocating against good science. Of course you would take evidence and match it up against a theory to see how it stands up. The only problem with that is that it does not support your view very well. That is no reason to advocate bad science.
The scientific method requires that you do just that. Match it up!
The only problem when matching up discoveries is that the theory of evolution does not match up at all with the evidence. there is ZERO support in the fossil record, in geological findings and in archaelogical findings, while all have ample support for the Bible and also the creation worldview.
The Biblical evidence for the origins of life (and matter) os of course a truth seeking proposition. If you never looked at it, then you would be ignoring the possibility. Therefore, you are only seeking what you want to believe and ignoring any truth to the contrary.
In response to your question, "how one 'seeks the truth' regarding biblical explanations for the origins of life."
You do so by reading the Bible, starting with Genesis chapters 1-3.
Then you can look at what some brilliant scientific minds at answersingenesis.com and icr.org have to say. you can try that for starters. that is of course, only if you care about seeking the truth.
As far as faith being required to believe in the Bible, I totally agree. and at least the same amount of faith is required to believe in the theory of evolution - especially since there is ZERO scientific confirmation of any of its unending theories. in fact these guys can't even get their theories straight. They quote Darwin, but as soon as the flaws with his theories show up, they drop it like a bad habit and move on to something else. But when they need it, they pull out darwin again. Again, not science, just a very paraniod theory that has nothing to stand on, but a wish that God was not real (for whatever reason).
Seeking the truth is just that. You are automatically trying to rule out the bible as an option of being the truth. Therefore, you are unobjective.
If the Bible is true, the YES you should read the BIBLE MORE!
As far as your stand against matching up discoveries with the Bible, you are advocating against good science. Of course you would take evidence and match it up against a theory to see how it stands up. The only problem with that is that it does not support your view very well. That is no reason to advocate bad science.
The scientific method requires that you do just that. Match it up!
The only problem when matching up discoveries is that the theory of evolution does not match up at all with the evidence. there is ZERO support in the fossil record, in geological findings and in archaelogical findings, while all have ample support for the Bible and also the creation worldview.
The Biblical evidence for the origins of life (and matter) os of course a truth seeking proposition. If you never looked at it, then you would be ignoring the possibility. Therefore, you are only seeking what you want to believe and ignoring any truth to the contrary.
In response to your question, "how one 'seeks the truth' regarding biblical explanations for the origins of life."
You do so by reading the Bible, starting with Genesis chapters 1-3.
Then you can look at what some brilliant scientific minds at answersingenesis.com and icr.org have to say. you can try that for starters. that is of course, only if you care about seeking the truth.
As far as faith being required to believe in the Bible, I totally agree. and at least the same amount of faith is required to believe in the theory of evolution - especially since there is ZERO scientific confirmation of any of its unending theories. in fact these guys can't even get their theories straight. They quote Darwin, but as soon as the flaws with his theories show up, they drop it like a bad habit and move on to something else. But when they need it, they pull out darwin again. Again, not science, just a very paraniod theory that has nothing to stand on, but a wish that God was not real (for whatever reason).
When you say you seek the truth you are lying. I know this when you say things like there is zero evidence for evolution, or that the people at the web page you link to have persuasive evidence to support Biblical explanations for the history of the world.
The only way you can possibly believe those things is to be utterly immune to the facts. In order to do that you have to do violence to the very notion of "facts", and the mechanisms by which they are established.
A person who works backward from the assertions in the Bible to support those assertions is not "seeking truth". They are seeking to validate a received world view.
And before you start going on about how that's just the same as evolutionary theory, please note that Darwin did not simply make bald assertions because he felt like it; he based his ideas on observable data and attempted to craft a coherent explanation that accounted for that data. That is seeking truth. It is also seeking truth when, subsequently, other researchers modify or extend those original ideas, in order to better account for the observable data.
If you still don't get the distinction, let me ask you: how often has biblical interpretation been modified to account for new discoveries? I mean, that would make sense, right, if we are "seeking truth"? To change our minds if new evidence comes to light? That's how it works in every other aspect of life.
So do biblical literalists get to change God's plan if they are exposed to new information?
Of course not. There is no "seeking", the truth part is already cast in stone.
And then you have the audacity to use the very thing about science that makes it a useful tool for truth seeking-- it's ability to change theories to better account for what we see and learn-- as evidence of its arbitrariness.
Get back to me when you're allowed to annotate the Bible because they found new fossil evidence in a river valley, and we can talk about "truth seeking".
When you say you seek the truth you are lying. I know this when you say things like there is zero evidence for evolution, or that the people at the web page you link to have persuasive evidence to support Biblical explanations for the history of the world.
The only way you can possibly believe those things is to be utterly immune to the facts. In order to do that you have to do violence to the very notion of "facts", and the mechanisms by which they are established.
A person who works backward from the assertions in the Bible to support those assertions is not "seeking truth". They are seeking to validate a received world view.
And before you start going on about how that's just the same as evolutionary theory, please note that Darwin did not simply make bald assertions because he felt like it; he based his ideas on observable data and attempted to craft a coherent explanation that accounted for that data. That is seeking truth. It is also seeking truth when, subsequently, other researchers modify or extend those original ideas, in order to better account for the observable data.
If you still don't get the distinction, let me ask you: how often has biblical interpretation been modified to account for new discoveries? I mean, that would make sense, right, if we are "seeking truth"? To change our minds if new evidence comes to light? That's how it works in every other aspect of life.
So do biblical literalists get to change God's plan if they are exposed to new information?
Of course not. There is no "seeking", the truth part is already cast in stone.
And then you have the audacity to use the very thing about science that makes it a useful tool for truth seeking-- it's ability to change theories to better account for what we see and learn-- as evidence of its arbitrariness.
Get back to me when you're allowed to annotate the Bible because they found new fossil evidence in a river valley, and we can talk about "truth seeking".
When I say to seek the truth, how am I lying? It seems that you are the one who is holding onto a received world-view. I am lying simply because I see things differently and encourage you to take another look? And lo and behold, because I said actual science and not fairy tales support the biblical view? It seems that you are simply trying to establish a theory that anything related to the Bible is only allowed to be fake or make-believe or ?blind faith?. There is a reason the Bible is the most successful book of all time. That is because it has been attacked more than any other and still stands the test. This is also true of the science in the Bible. That is why the creationists are secure in their world-view while the evolutionists are scratching desperately for any hint of truth to their religion. A pig tooth is found in an old strata of ground and we hear ?AHA! Proof! Whatever. it was a pigs tooth. The next thing you know we hear about ?Lucy?. Again ?AHA!? Whatever. It was a tree-swinging monkey. This junk happens over and over and the evolutionists are proven wrong again and again, yet never want to admit it (kind of like Al Gore). That is not science. That is religious zeal.
When I say seek the truth I mean just that. Instead of going along with the mob mentality like ?well these people believe it, so I will too - hey I watched ?the Land before Time??, look at the facts. I guarantee none of you are doing that. Even the fellow who posted after you. He simply denounces the links I posted to without ever reading anything. If he did, OH NO! He might be challenged to actually have to think for himself! And his world-view just might be shown to be faulty.
Seek the truth. Yet again, I have to explain that when you try to leave the Bible out, by ruling it out as a possibility of being the truth, you are not being objective, but are simply showing religious zeal for your evolutionism. To say someone is not sincere by stating another possibility is absurd.
I will say that I am biased toward the biblical creation world-view. You are biased toward evolution.
There are only two origins models that are plausible. Creation and evolutionism. The latter is the one in jeopardy. You will just have to deal with it.
Coming up with things like ?you are lying when you say ?seek the truth?? just makes you sound childish and irrational.
I have noticed a trend in these comments. Everyone attacks the person, but not the science. Even if I was a horrible criminal mastermind, but I was pointing you to truth, you would be unwise to not at least give it a look. The facts simply and clearly do not support evolutionism. I am open to the possibility, but in my years of life I have never come across anything that stood any sort of scrutiny or time.
As for my personal credibility, for you to say that I am working from backward assertions and then just trying to support them - well you know nothing about me and I don?t really matter in this discussion, but since you brought me up, let me explain some things. When I was in 2nd grade, I learned the theory of evolution. I thought it was weird. It did not seem right, but I accepted it anyway, because it was in a book, and there was this convincing ape-to-man picture and because that is all I was exposed to. One time, my family thought it would be interesting to go to church. We did and we heard about Adam and Eve and the biblical account of Creation. That not only seemed right to my young mind, but then I started wondering why there were two different ideas on the subject. When I got into the 5th grade, I actually started trying to figure it out. Yes, even as a 5th grader. i visited the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego California. I learned a lot. Then I found out that there are these neat things called science journals that I started reading that have all kinds of documentation that never makes it into text books. It was then that I really started seeing the raging war that went on in the field of science and how paranoid the evolution supporters were of how loosely held together that theory is. I went on to read a book called ?Evidence that Demands a Verdict? written by an atheist that went all-out to disprove the Bible and ended up becoming one of its staunchest supporters. I also had taken to the Bible and put my faith in Jesus Christ. In High School I did a Creation vs Evolution debate for my Senior Project and invited a Creation Scientist to be my guest speaker. Of course, all the teachers showed up to hear it and were blown away. Even our sociology teacher who proclaimed himself to be an expert on the subject was speechless and had to admit that the evidence for creation seemed very compelling.
?And before you start going on about how that's just the same as evolutionary theory, please note that Darwin did not simply make bald assertions because he felt like it; he based his ideas on observable data and attempted to craft a coherent explanation that accounted for that data. That is seeking truth. It is also seeking truth when, subsequently, other researchers modify or extend those original ideas, in order to better account for the observable data.?
What? Have you not read Origin of the Species?
First of all, about it being the same as evolutionary theory. Well... it is!
Darwin boldly proclaimed that the best cause for the human eye to exist is intelligent design. Then after stating that any idea to the contrary would be absurd, he goes on at length to describe how it possibly could have happened via evolution. He had no observable data other than - THERE WAS AN EYE.
That is a cop out. That is trying to prove his world-view contrary to the evidence in front of him.
Darwin had to admit that the eye looked like it had to be created, yet he still stubbornly tried to come up with an alternative explanation that to this day has yet to show any sign of being proven. That is not a ?better account of observable data?, that is a man trying to defend his belief system in spite of data to the contrary.
If you still don't get the distinction, let me ask you: how often has biblical interpretation been modified to account for new discoveries? I mean, that would make sense, right, if we are "seeking truth"? To change our minds if new evidence comes to light? That's how it works in every other aspect of life.
This has happened a long time ago in the Scopes trial. The evolutionists came out with so many versions of their theory that it was impossible to even tell how or if evolution happened. However, evolutionism was not on trial here. Creation was. The creationists supported a strange theory that no creation scientist believes in. It is called the day-age theory where he tried to account for evolutionary theory in order to mix it into the Bible. The two don?t mix. The evolutionists never had to prove anything in that case. The creationist simply did not know what he was getting himself into. He had a different interpretation, but it was not even based on evidence, it was a paranoid response to evolutionary theory.
There will always be some who will change their views to try hold on to their beliefs, look at Darwin for crying out loud. There will be that problem on the creation side too, not because their is something wrong with the creation model, but because people are people.
Howver, biblical interpretation in general has not been modified in light of any evidence, because all the evidence up to this point today seems to support creation. Therefore, those with the creation world-view have no need to modify their beliefs, they are simply encouraged in it.
When new evidence comes up you must reinterpret it. You look at it and see it for what it is. If there is a perfectly plausible explanation for a certain view, then you must accept that. History has shown in every field of science, that the evidence leaves evolutionism completely and totally lacking for any evidence whatsoever.
[QUOTE]
And then you have the audacity to use the very thing about science that makes it a useful tool for truth seeking-- it's ability to change theories to better account for what we see and learn-- as evidence of its arbitrariness.
QUOTE]
The scientific method is a great tool for truth seeking. How is that audacious? I am the only one to have brought real science into this discussion and now I am audacious. That is exactly the problem. People have their feelings hurt when their feelings hurt and they start grasping for straws.
I have given you the scientific method. You are correct in saying that should change theories, which is why evolutionism is NOT science. It is a theory that is not only not supported by the scientific method, but debunked by it.
Science is not arbitrary. evolutionism is.
Seek the truth. Not what you wish it was.
Get back to me when you're allowed to annotate the Bible because they found new fossil evidence in a river valley, and we can talk about "truth seeking".
The day we find as much evidence for evolution as we have for creation, I will. Assuming this message board is still here and you and I are alive and there ever will be such things discovered. it has not happened yet, not is it likely to based on historical record.
Just seek the truth. I believe it is in the biblical creation account. I have given many reasons. You have not. There is plenty more and in much more detail that I can share. If you want to just play little games then leave me out of it. However, if you want to engage in intelligent scientific discussion on the merits of both sides in the interest of coming to a clear conclusion, then by all means, come up with some real reasons for evolution and let?s go from there.
Just seek the truth. I believe it is in the biblical creation account. I have given many reasons. You have not. There is plenty more and in much more detail that I can share. If you want to just play little games then leave me out of it. However, if you want to engage in intelligent scientific discussion on the merits of both sides in the interest of coming to a clear conclusion, then by all means, come up with some real reasons for evolution and let?s go from there.
Yawn!
Did you know that when Jonah spent 3 days in the belly of the whale it is an allegory for Jonah being the Sun, the Whale being the Earth, the 3 days being a reference to the amount of time the Sun spends at the winter equinox before it starts its ascention back to the highest point in the sky (which is told by the allegory of the sermon on the mount when the story was re-written to replace older personifications of the Sun - in characters such as Moses and Jonah - with a new figure for the times who was Jesus Christ.
The Jonah story being the theological equivalent of Jesus' burial in the tomb after the crucifixion because this Jesus story relates exactly the same knowledge of the solar cycle - for a different era.
That is the sort of TRUTH in the Bible - a recording of ancient scientific discoveries and knowledge played out as fictional characters in stories and mythmaking - so that the TRUTH was not forgotten amongst the illiterate masses, even if they needed a bit of a kick in the proverbial to wake them from their dozy slumber to appreciate what these stories really mean.
If you've got any intention to seek the truth I would suggest you shut your ignorant trap and go smack yourself in the head with a big dose of it.
Howver, biblical interpretation in general has not been modified in light of any evidence, because all the evidence up to this point today seems to support creation. Therefore, those with the creation world-view have no need to modify their beliefs, they are simply encouraged in it........
The day we find as much evidence for evolution as we have for creation, I will. Assuming this message board is still here and you and I are alive and there ever will be such things discovered. it has not happened yet, not is it likely to based on historical record.......
Just seek the truth. I believe it is in the biblical creation account. I have given many reasons. You have not. There is plenty more and in much more detail that I can share. If you want to just play little games then leave me out of it. However, if you want to engage in intelligent scientific discussion on the merits of both sides in the interest of coming to a clear conclusion, then by all means, come up with some real reasons for evolution and let?s go from there.
Weird. It's like talking to someone from a alternative dimension wherein "evidence" and "proof" have completely different meanings from the home world.
Just as with the global warming "discussions" I'm reminded that it is pointless to go back and forth on the merits when one of the parties involved is using a completely different metric for what the merits might be, and that metric provides no means for substantiation outside of bald assertion.
So I'll just say this: please, please, please anti-science "we'll believe whatever we want" folks: move south of the Mason-Dixon line, secede from the union, and leave the rest of us alone. Have your biblically based "science". Maybe you can turn you sights to things like medical research, and realize that the Bible has no use for these so called "antibiotics" and "prenatal care". When your childhood mortality rates start to skyrocket, surely that will be God's will and you can deal with it accordingly (Pray harder? Burn witches? Up to you).
Have your damn theocracy, already. Maybe once you aren't fired by the satisfactions of "refuting he secularists" you'll notice that theocracies have some major problems with governance, here in the 21st century.
Which is why we'll want free movement over the borders of Jesus Land, because at least some of your citizenry are going to get really unhappy, after the initial exhilaration has worn off.
Especially once you realize that God's Invariant Word, amazingly enough, isn't uniformly agreed upon, even amongst the Godly!
And there won't be any way to resolve that, short of force. You apparently imagine that you are using some version of the scientific method to reach dispassionate conclusions about the nature of the world. Trust me, you're not, as will become quickly evident once dispute arises and you need to sort it out. "All the evidence points to demonic possession as the root of our malaise!" "No, no, the preponderance of proof lies with malaria, which can be cured with certain unguents!" "Demons!" "Unguents!"
I give ya'll a couple of generations before natural selection removes the stupid from our midst.
Yawn!
Did you know that when Jonah spent 3 days in the belly of the whale it is an allegory for Jonah being the Sun, the Whale being the Earth, the 3 days being a reference to the amount of time the Sun spends at the winter equinox before it starts its ascention back to the highest point in the sky (which is told by the allegory of the sermon on the mount when the story was re-written to replace older personifications of the Sun - in characters such as Moses and Jonah - with a new figure for the times who was Jesus Christ.
The Jonah story being the theological equivalent of Jesus' burial in the tomb after the crucifixion because this Jesus story relates exactly the same knowledge of the solar cycle - for a different era.
That is the sort of TRUTH in the Bible - a recording of ancient scientific discoveries and knowledge played out as fictional characters in stories and mythmaking - so that the TRUTH was not forgotten amongst the illiterate masses, even if they needed a bit of a kick in the proverbial to wake them from their dozy slumber to appreciate what these stories really mean.
If you've got any intention to seek the truth I would suggest you shut your ignorant trap and go smack yourself in the head with a big dose of it.
Speaking of ignorance...
It is interesting that you twist the Bible to say some craziness, but you cannot prove what you say. There are allegories in the Bible, but they are clearly called such. The parables of Jesus for example. The other parts are literal history. You are clearly just trying to joke and add confusion. The Bible says none of the things you mention (jonah and whale = sun, earth and such).
You just spout off a wierd take on the Bible. The Jonah story was literal history. Plain and simple. You don't beleive it, so you are forced to expalin it away. That does not make it untrue.
The fact is I was ignorant until I came face to face with the truth of Jesus Christ in the Bible.
All you can say is some thing like "shut your yap". How childish. I guess this thread boils down to the fact that evolution is a supported by a cult of child-minds who refuse to see anything other than a blind belief in their precious god of evolutionism.
This is how these discussions go down all the time. The creation worldview is given and the evolutionists degrade it by avoiding any objective science and getting into a babyish and fairy tale-like babblings on the bible.
If this thread is anything to go by, we can conclude that creation is at the very least a more mature position to take than evolutionism.
All you can say is some thing like "shut your yap". How childish.
The bible tells me to be childish, i'll write the rest of my post when I stop laughing
.....This is how these discussions go down all the time. The creation worldview is given and the evolutionists degrade it by avoiding any objective science and getting into a babyish and fairy tale-like babblings on the bible.
If this thread is anything to go by, we can conclude that creation is at the very least a more mature position to take than evolutionism.
Jesus Land. Thataway. Please.
Weird. It's like talking to someone from a alternative dimension wherein "evidence" and "proof" have completely different meanings from the home world.
Just as with the global warming "discussions" I'm reminded that it is pointless to go back and forth on the merits when one of the parties involved is using a completely different metric for what the merits might be, and that metric provides no means for substantiation outside of bald assertion.
So I'll just say this: please, please, please anti-science "we'll believe whatever we want" folks: move south of the Mason-Dixon line, secede from the union, and leave the rest of us alone. Have your biblically based "science". Maybe you can turn you sights to things like medical research, and realize that the Bible has no use for these so called "antibiotics" and "prenatal care". When your childhood mortality rates start to skyrocket, surely that will be God's will and you can deal with it accordingly (Pray harder? Burn witches? Up to you).
Have your damn theocracy, already. Maybe once you aren't fired by the satisfactions of "refuting he secularists" you'll notice that theocracies have some major problems with governance, here in the 21st century.
Which is why we'll want free movement over the borders of Jesus Land, because at least some of your citizenry are going to get really unhappy, after the initial exhilaration has worn off.
Especially once you realize that God's Invariant Word, amazingly enough, isn't uniformly agreed upon, even amongst the Godly!
And there won't be any way to resolve that, short of force. You apparently imagine that you are using some version of the scientific method to reach dispassionate conclusions about the nature of the world. Trust me, you're not, as will become quickly evident once dispute arises and you need to sort it out. "All the evidence points to demonic possession as the root of our malaise!" "No, no, the preponderance of proof lies with malaria, which can be cured with certain unguents!" "Demons!" "Unguents!"
I give ya'll a couple of generations before natural selection removes the stupid from our midst.
What do you mean? Modern medicine is a wonderful thing. The Bible speaks well of dotors. It is an honorable thing. The apostle Luke (author of Luke and Acts) was a doctor. Where do you get that the Bible is anti-medicine. it is not the case.
Just because some other folks than you look at science and don't accept some theories that have been falsely called science like evolutionism, they have a different definition for science? Surely you did not just try that cop-out. But yes, you did.
By science I mean the exact thing that you should know it to be and one basic thing that all science is to be judged on is the scientific method. i will not apologize for that.
You offer nothing of validity in your statement. You compeletely avoid providing anything of merit concerning the subject of this thread. All you do is say that I am not sceintific and that the Bible is weird (to paraphrase).
Well, certainly there are differences of beliefs amongst Bible believers just as there are amongst evolutionism beleivers. However, since many folks have not studied their Bibles, but feel like they have to say something about it. Unfortunately, you have weird takes on the bible just like you have people with weird takes on anything.
However, when people get down to it and really study, for the most part, they arrive at the same conclusions.
It is interesting that no one here wants to just get down to the science of it all. All you want to do is try to change the definition of science for me and call me an alien and whatever. Why don't you contribute somehting of value? Let's get into the pros and cons of each model. Let's look at what you think proof of evolution is?
The real stupid is the one who attacks anything different than what they want without understanding it. And that about sums up the majority of the posts on this thread. And I say this without trying to insult anyone. You call me stupid, but I don't attack you. I am trying to have us all take a serious look at what we believe and why.
There is an old saying: "If you throw a rock over a fence, the dog that barks loudest is the one that got hit".
With a topic like this, no doubt someone is going to get riled, but let's take that energy and be constructive with it.
Speaking of ignorance...
It is interesting that you twist the Bible to say some craziness, but you cannot prove what you say. There are allegories in the Bible, but they are clearly called such. The parables of Jesus for example. The other parts are literal history. You are clearly just trying to joke and add confusion. The Bible says none of the things you mention (jonah and whale = sun, earth and such).
You just spout off a wierd take on the Bible. The Jonah story was literal history. Plain and simple. You don't beleive it, so you are forced to expalin it away. That does not make it untrue.
The fact is I was ignorant until I came face to face with the truth of Jesus Christ in the Bible.
All you can say is some thing like "shut your yap". How childish. I guess this thread boils down to the fact that evolution is a supported by a cult of child-minds who refuse to see anything other than a blind belief in their precious god of evolutionism.
This is how these discussions go down all the time. The creation worldview is given and the evolutionists degrade it by avoiding any objective science and getting into a babyish and fairy tale-like babblings on the bible.
If this thread is anything to go by, we can conclude that creation is at the very least a more mature position to take than evolutionism.
I was going to make a strong coffee - but i think i'll grab a beer instead. Fancy a John Smiths?
I think you are lacking in refinement - you are a very angry person, there is no grace and contemplation in your last post. According to Zoroastrian mythlogy, the force of destruction and chaos is Angra Mainyu. I've often wondered if this is a joke. It sounds alot to me like 'Angry man you' - regardless of its pun on words - there is alot to be learned from this. Anger definately comes from a chaotic destructive place within us - even when in your case you feel you are doing the right thing to honour your beliefs. You don't seem to have learned the grace a proper contemplation of Jesus' words would bestow on one of his followers.
You're right, I cannot prove what I say - a wise person would realise that it isn't possible to prove 'anything'. The philosopher Socrates was once declared the wisest man alive, because he knew that he knew nothing. It might be a slightly arrogant thing to say - as obviously i think I know a few things, but it really should be thought about because there is something very fundamental you can learn about objective reality from that statement. Neither of us can 'prove' a damn thing, because we weren't there 2000 years ago.
As for my Jonah explanation, if you want to expand your understanding of the Bible, you could read this http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/...t/xt-preb2.htm
Bear in mind that its not necessarily the right answer, just an answer and many more are available to someone seeking out truth and knowledge.
Regardless of whether you think thats right or wrong, as neither you or me can prove a damn thing, the wise thing to do is keep it in mind along with all the other answers you could find before you go proclaiming things you have no way of knowing and seek to expand your understanding and knowledge.
I put it to you that every story in the bible has a deeper meaning than what is first learned by simply reading the surface text, and if you wanted to become wise with your years, you could seek out these deeper meanings. Regardless of whether you believe them or not, there is nothing to lose by chosing to expand the base of knowledge you draw from.