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.
Really? Cause....
Quote:
Exodus 15:26: ""...If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the LORD that healeth thee."
\tII Kings 20:5: "...Thus saith Jehovah, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will heal thee..."
\tPsalms 34:17-19: "The righteous cry, and the LORD heareth, and delivereth them out of all their troubles. The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit. Many are the afflictions of the righteous: but the LORD delivereth him out of them all."
\tPsalms 103: "Bless the Lord, O my soul,...And forget none of His benefits; Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; Who healeth all thy diseases"
\tIsaiah 57:18-21: "I have seen his ways, and will heal him: I will lead him also, and restore comforts unto him and to his mourners. I create the fruit of the lips: Peace, peace, to him that is far off and to him that is near, saith Jehovah; and I will heal him. But the wicked are like the troubled sea; for it cannot rest, and its waters cast up mire and dirt. There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked"
\tJeremiah 30:17: "For I will restore health unto thee, and I will heal thee of thy wounds, saith Jehovah; because they have called thee an outcast..."
\tHosea 6:1: "Come, and let us return unto Jehovah; for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up."
Matt 21:22: "And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive."
\tMark 16:18 "they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."
\tJames 5:14-15: "Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save him that is sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, it shall be forgiven him."
Doctors? Pffft. You obviously lack faith. God will heal your diseases and injuries, if you ask: the Bible couldn't be more clear. I guess you just believe in the Word of the Lord when it's convenient. Just ask the Christian Scientists. Or are they reading the Bible wrong? Uh oh.
\t
Quote:
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.
Wheeeee! It's fun when sentences turn into snakes that eat their own tail! And that little tsk-tsking at the end? It's like being scolded by a street loon for not avoiding the face-eating crab monsters!
Quote:
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.
And yet, strangely, I am not reassured.
Quote:
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).
The particulars of evolutionary theory, the voluminous data that supports it, and the striking ancillary support from other disciplines have been presented ad nauseum, in thread after thread after thread, on these boards and beyond, in every conceivable medium, stretching from here to Timbuktu.
The response from Jesus Land has pretty uniformly been some variation on "is not", so you'll forgive me if I forgo the lengthy process of yet again citing the readily available data on the off chance that this time you'll slap your hand to your forehead and go "Oh! That giant mountain of evidence! Man, what was I thinking!"
Anyway, as I say, the "scientific refutation" bit is not worth arguing with you folks, given your, uh, perspective on the nature of how science works and what a fact looks like as it sinks its teeth into your pious ass.
I have never called the Bible "weird", although that characterization is at least odd.
Quote:
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.
Yeah. Weird.
Quote:
However, when people get down to it and really study, for the most part, they arrive at the same conclusions.
Gosh, that works out splendidly then, doesn't it? Disagreement equals failure to really study. So, like, will Jesus Land have special classes where failure is not an option? I believe they're called "reeducation camps". Christian Scientists, I'm looking at you!
Quote:
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?
See previous comment on the efficacy of same.
Quote:
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.
And you are the soul of discretion, friend. On the other hand, you're not arguing with the aggressively ignorant.
Quote:
There is an old saying: "If you throw a rock over a fence, the dog that barks loudest is the one that got hit".
There's another: "Arguing with the aggressively ignorant is tedious to point of wanting to make you want to tear your face off".
Quote:
With a topic like this, no doubt someone is going to get riled, but let's take that energy and be constructive with it.
I agree. Gather up the kin folk and get you to Jesus Land so you can enjoy the fruits of your faith unencumbered by the 21st century and its godless fake science.
Indeed. God heals. He is God after all. He made us and He heals us according to His sovereign will. there are cases in the bible where god heals and where God choosed to not heal (as with the Apostle Paul) becuase He has a greater purpose in allowing somehting to go on in someones life. So yes, he heals, but NO, there is nothing against doctors in the bible. The only place where anything even remotely negative is said is not even referring to doctors at all, but the fact that Asa sought only the doctors and not God. and the doctors were not able ot help him. he died. Jesus said "they that are well need not the physician, but they that are sick."
The Bible does not put down doctors. Doctors are good. In fact hospices started out as a ministry by Bible believing people. Hospitals sprang from that. Look it up.
Unfortunately, there are some who will try to ignore some parts of the Bible and say (like the Christian scientists do) that you can just "believe it away". That is not what the bible teaches.
Doctors have a good ministry and God heals. Both are true.
Quote:
Doctors? Pffft. You obviously lack faith. God will heal your diseases and injuries, if you ask: the Bible couldn't be more clear. I guess you just believe in the Word of the Lord when it's convenient. Just ask the Christian Scientists. Or are they reading the Bible wrong? Uh oh.
I Think we all know "Christian Scientists" are anything but. Their is no science to saying "If I don't believe it, it is not real".
They have different beliefs than than what the Bible plainly puts forward.
\t
Quote:
Wheeeee! It's fun when sentences turn into snakes that eat their own tail! And that little tsk-tsking at the end? It's like being scolded by a street loon for not avoiding the face-eating crab monsters!
And that has nothing to do with what I was quoted on. Thanks for sharing!
Quote:
And yet, strangely, I am not reassured.
And yet, strangley, that was not my intent.
Quote:
The particulars of evolutionary theory, the voluminous data that supports it, and the striking ancillary support from other disciplines have been presented ad nauseum, in thread after thread after thread, on these boards and beyond, in every conceivable medium, stretching from here to Timbuktu.
Ah. Voluminous data. there is always this claim of irrefutable tremendous amounts of data. too bad it is never put forth. When it is, it is historically dismantled. There are voluminous THEORIES, that's for sure, many of which contradict each other. None that help stem the confusion. Really, it is a shame.
Quote:
The response from Jesus Land has pretty uniformly been some variation on "is not", so you'll forgive me if I forgo the lengthy process of yet again citing the readily available data on the off chance that this time you'll slap your hand to your forehead and go "Oh! That giant mountain of evidence! Man, what was I thinking!"
Again, WHAT giant mountain? there is NO evidence. Only theory. they find a pigs tooth and theorize. they find a man with rickets and theorize. they find an ape looking skull... it came from an ape! they find a man who has some ape like features... whoa! it turns out to be the heavyweight champion of the world, Nicolai Valuev! today! There is simply no evidence. That is just the way it is.
Quote:
Anyway, as I say, the "scientific refutation" bit is not worth arguing with you folks, given your, uh, perspective on the nature of how science works and what a fact looks like as it sinks its teeth into your pious ass.
Well, you have certainly spent a lot of time talking about nothing then. What you are saying is that you are copping out. You try to tell me that I don't know facts, yet you offer ZERO, while I have tried to offer relevant facts. that is alright I guess. That is just who you are. I have been trying to talk science. You can leave the Bible out if you want. Pure science. Let's go.
Quote:
I have never called the Bible "weird", although that characterization is at least odd.
Neither have I, but what you put forth as biblical meaning was a weird take, that had nothing to do with what the passage was saying. It's just like making it up as you go along. You wouldn't do that with an instruction booklet or a history book, and you shouldn't do that with the Bible as it is both a historical record and an instruction for living.
Quote:
Yeah. Weird.
That's what I said. Weird.
Quote:
Gosh, that works out splendidly then, doesn't it? Disagreement equals failure to really study. So, like, will Jesus Land have special classes where failure is not an option? I believe they're called "reeducation camps". Christian Scientists, I'm looking at you!
Uh... A Creation Scientist is not quite the same as a "Christian Scientist". Just thought you should know.
Quote:
See previous comment on the efficacy of same.
And then re-read the response.
Quote:
And you are the soul of discretion, friend. On the other hand, you're not arguing with the aggressively ignorant.
ok... Actually, ignorance is usually passive, except when someone purposefully hides and closes their mind to something that challenges them, so I suppose you mean "actively ignorant"
Quote:
There's another: "Arguing with the aggressively ignorant is tedious to point of wanting to make you want to tear your face off".
Although, I sympathize with that quote, I am not at the point of trying to hurt myself.
Quote:
I agree. Gather up the kin folk and get you to Jesus Land so you can enjoy the fruits of your faith unencumbered by the 21st century and its godless fake science.
while I find that comment pretty funny, it really is sad. Jesus Land will come soon enough. Life is not that long. science is science. thoery is theory and the thoeries that have some evidence to them should be looked at further. the ones that don't should be recognized as such. Evolutionism is in such a dillemma. This is evident in the numerous responses in this post with zero ammunition to them.
Evolution is a belief system. You have to believe in it to try to interpret the world around you. Unfortunatley, there is so much evidence to the contrary, that some even brilliant men are forced to sound foolish when they take a glorious discovery and then play make-believe. Darwin is a good example of this with the human eye. Even a one-celled paramecium is so complex that the chances for all of its features to have evolved at the same time are so far out that it is logically impossible. for the vacules and the nucleus and the spines that shoot out, etc to have formed at all are impossible. Then to try to account for them forming at the same time (because if they did not, the beginnings of that creature would have died, not being able to feed itself). Then, you have to account for how the food evolved and how all the parts of it had to form together at exactly the same time, etc. you can go on and on.. how carbon dioxide, hydrogen and oxygen all have to work together to support the various life forms that exist (and how they are perpetuated by those various life forms).
And the big bang theory. where did the gas come from? How did that begin? In fact, that theory is so full of hot air :-) that it is ridiculous. It makes more sense to say there is an eternal God than eternal gas.
I was just playing around and made this (from an 80's cartoon)- then I read the latest episode of this thread - what can I say - divine prophetic intervention.
Ah. Voluminous data. there is always this claim of irrefutable tremendous amounts of data. too bad it is never put forth. When it is, it is historically dismantled. There are voluminous THEORIES, that's for sure, many of which contradict each other.
Quote:
Again, WHAT giant mountain? there is NO evidence. Only theory. ...There is simply no evidence.
Looks like someone doesn't know the definitions of "theory" and "data".
Again, WHAT giant mountain? there is NO evidence. Only theory.
The fact that you'd say "there is NO evidence. Only theory" in and of itself proves you haven't the faintest clue of what you're talking about -- you can't know anything about the scientific method or the meanings of the words "evidence" and "theory" and still say this.
When you've cured yourself interpreting the word "theory" only in the colloquial sense of "hunch" or "wild guess" or "something not yet proven", please come back and try again.
In the meantime, you might want to carry around some rope and grappling hooks to keep yourself securely anchored to the ground in case that crazy "theory of gravity" gives out on us.
I wonder if 9second knows that most mainline Christian denominations, not to mention the Catholic church, have issued official statements supporting biological evolution? Sure, they believe God started it, or even guides it, but they don't deny the processes of evolution as 9second does. I don't know of any mainline Christian denominations that have officially rejected evolution. So not only is 9second out of step with all of the earth sciences and biological sciences, he's also out of step with Christian churches.
I wonder if 9second knows that most mainline Christian denominations, not to mention the Catholic church, have issued official statements supporting biological evolution? Sure, they believe God started it, or even guides it, but they don't deny the processes of evolution as 9second does. I don't know of any mainline Christian denominations that have officially rejected evolution. So not only is 9second out of step with all of the earth sciences and biological sciences, he's also out of step with Christian churches.
Obviously, mainline Christian denominations have failed to read their Bibles closely enough and come away with weird ideas.
So not only is 9second out of step with all of the earth sciences and biological sciences, he's also out of step with Christian churches.
He's only out of step with so-called Christian churches which have lost their way, which have been led astray by Materialism and seduced by thinking their own intellects are better than God's Word!
(It's too damned easy to simulate fundy thinking sometimes.)
I was just playing around and made this (from an 80's cartoon)- then I read the latest episode of this thread - what can I say - divine prophetic intervention.
They look like cool Aliens that we might meet. If we meet aliens. Not the "greys" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greys) and what not. They're scary.
Speaking of more data, faster-than-light travel to neighbouring stars and galaxies will be cool, particularly meeting/ discovering other life-forms, then we can study *their* evolution. Or creation, whatevs.
//theory- "an idea used to justify a course of action or to account for a situation." that is the definition of the word.
//Evidence - "the available body of facts indicating whether a proposition [* read THEORY*] is true or valid."
Seems that somebody other than me is mistaken about the meanings of these words here..
Once again, there is NO evidence to support the THEORY of evolutionism.
Evolutionism is not science. It is a theory.
You say that evolution is fact, but cannot support it. Just becuase you say it many times does not make it true. there has to be factual support. There is none.
Every so called proof has been proven to either be bad science where the find was actually a creature we see today, or a fraud, where people got together, created something and flat out lied to support their belief in evolution. go check out Piltdown Man on that one and then go into you local school and ask yourself why that example is still in the textbooks after being proven to be a fraud.
Quote:
I wonder if 9second knows that most mainline Christian denominations, not to mention the Catholic church, have issued official statements supporting biological evolution? Sure, they believe God started it, or even guides it, but they don't deny the processes of evolution as 9second does. I don't know of any mainline Christian denominations that have officially rejected evolution. So not only is 9second out of step with all of the earth sciences and biological sciences, he's also out of step with Christian churches.
I am aware that Catholicism has embraced evolution. i am also aware that Catholicism elevates Mary to the postiion of Jesus and that they teach that Mary was a virgin forever, somehow leaving the explanation of Jesus' brothers left to the pondereances of confusions everywhere. Only Jesus was virgin born. Then she went on to have a normal married life with Joseph and bore children the way all women do.
i am also aware that catholicism teaches that the bread and wine at communion actually somehow transform into real blood and flesh when you eat it. that in spite of the fact that it still looks, feels, smells and tastes the same and that the actualy ingredients of it never change.
in other words, I am aware that the catholic church says some interesting things that do not have any measureable basis in truth. embracing evolution is just a step of trying to look like they are relevant. Martin Luther made a break with the Catholic Church a long time ago. Most smart people do the same. No mainline christian denomination recognizes the catholic church as correct. Maybe the Episcopal church and possibly the methodists, but that is all.
I could care less what any denomination says. If I did, I could bring up Calvary Chapel, The Baptists, the Assemblies of God, and many more who share my view. I am not interested in who is right. I am interested in what is right. And so should you be.
Quote:
The fact that you'd say "there is NO evidence. Only theory" in and of itself proves you haven't the faintest clue of what you're talking about -- you can't know anything about the scientific method or the meanings of the words "evidence" and "theory" and still say this.
When you've cured yourself interpreting the word "theory" only in the colloquial sense of "hunch" or "wild guess" or "something not yet proven", please come back and try again.
In the meantime, you might want to carry around some rope and grappling hooks to keep yourself securely anchored to the ground in case that crazy "theory of gravity" gives out on us.
Dude, it sounds like first you shoul invest in a dictionary to learn the meanings of theory and evidence. Next, take another look at the scientific method with the correct understanding of said terms. Finally, learn the difference between theory and scientific law. There is a law of gravity, not a theory.
There is a theory of evolution, not a law. you need to see repeatable, irrefutable evidence for that. Law in science is fact. Evolutionism will never acheive that. It is a glamourized fairy tale. There is however the 2nd law of thermodynamics which states that everything is slowing down and breaking down. That fits with the creation model that says everything was created a certain way and then winds down. According to evolution, laws of science dont' matter -- the world and universe is only getting better (yeah, that must be why the sun is losing so much of its mass every day and why we are debating global warming). Evolutionism has got to be one of the most UNscientific theories ever.
Once again, there is NO evidence to support the THEORY of evolutionism.
Evolutionism is not science. It is a theory.
You say that evolution is fact, but cannot support it. Just becuase you say it many times does not make it true. there has to be factual support. There is none.
Every so called proof has been proven to either be bad science where the find was actually a creature we see today, or a fraud, where people got together, created something and flat out lied to support their belief in evolution. go check out Piltdown Man on that one and then go into you local school and ask yourself why that example is still in the textbooks after being proven to be a fraud.
Wow, you got it bad. I'm surprised the village elders let you use the internets. It's devil magic, you know.
Quote:
I am aware that Catholicism has embraced evolution. i am also aware that Catholicism elevates Mary to the postiion of Jesus and that they teach that Mary was a virgin forever, somehow leaving the explanation of Jesus' brothers left to the pondereances of confusions everywhere. Only Jesus was virgin born. Then she went on to have a normal married life with Joseph and bore children the way all women do.
i am also aware that catholicism teaches that the bread and wine at communion actually somehow transform into real blood and flesh when you eat it. that in spite of the fact that it still looks, feels, smells and tastes the same and that the actualy ingredients of it never change.
in other words, I am aware that the catholic church says some interesting things that do not have any measureable basis in truth. embracing evolution is just a step of trying to look like they are relevant. Martin Luther made a break with the Catholic Church a long time ago. Most smart people do the same. No mainline christian denomination recognizes the catholic church as correct. Maybe the Episcopal church and possibly the methodists, but that is all.
OK, I'm really, really sorry we brought it up.... (double checks location of exits)
Quote:
I could care less what any denomination says. If I did, I could bring up Calvary Chapel, The Baptists, the Assemblies of God, and many more who share my view. I am not interested in who is right. I am interested in what is right. And so should you be.
Right, the various tribes of Jesus Land. I'll just go and break it to the Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists, Mormons, Presbyterians, Amish, Quakers, and the United Church of Christ that they're not invited on account of not being, um, smart enough. I'm sure they'll be..... devastated.
Quote:
Dude, it sounds like first you shoul invest in a dictionary to learn the meanings of theory and evidence. Next, take another look at the scientific method with the correct understanding of said terms. Finally, learn the difference between theory and scientific law. There is a law of gravity, not a theory.
See, this where you really shine, when you follow up on gibberish that suggests you have never, ever in your life been exposed to actual science by scolding people for not being sufficiently rigorous. It's sort of charmingly perverse, in a tear your face off of kind of way.
Quote:
There is a theory of evolution, not a law. you need to see repeatable, irrefutable evidence for that. Law in science is fact. Evolutionism will never acheive that. It is a glamourized fairy tale. There is however the 2nd law of thermodynamics which states that everything is slowing down and breaking down. That fits with the creation model that says everything was created a certain way and then winds down. According to evolution, laws of science dont' matter -- the world and universe is only getting better (yeah, that must be why the sun is losing so much of its mass every day and why we are debating global warming). Evolutionism has got to be one of the most UNscientific theories ever.
Bravo. Your closing flourish makes your previous gibberish look like tightly constructed argumentation, marshaling, as it does, whole new, vastly misconstrued nuggets from disciplines you know absolutely nothing about to support your primary area of ignorance.
You quote one dictionary definition of "theory" which has nothing to do with the specialized scientific use of the word, and think you've proved something. Well, you have... that you're clueless.
Many specialties have specialized vocabulary, where words have special meanings either not found in standard dictionaries, or found only among the non-primary dictionary definitions. You're just showing your ignorance now, like someone vehemently insisting that a hockey player couldn't possibly have scored a hat trick because he never performed a trick with a hat.
Please don't convince yourself that dull-headed literalism using the wrong definitions of words amounts to some sort of victory.
Quote:
Dude, it sounds like first you shoul invest in a dictionary to learn the meanings of theory and evidence. Next, take another look at the scientific method with the correct understanding of said terms. Finally, learn the difference between theory and scientific law. There is a law of gravity, not a theory.
There are both a theory and a law of gravity, actually. And curiously enough (curious only if you're laboring under common misconceptions), Newton's Law of Gravity proved to be less accurate than Einstein's Theory of Gravity.
A "law" is not greater, nor lesser, that a "theory". A "fact" is not greater, nor lesser, than a "theory". Each of those words applies to different conceptual domains, not to some linear scale of certainty vs. doubt.
A law is a descriptive. A fact is evidentiary. A theory is explanatory.
There is however the 2nd law of thermodynamics which states that everything is slowing down and breaking down. That fits with the creation model that says everything was created a certain way and then winds down. According to evolution, laws of science dont' matter -- the world and universe is only getting better (yeah, that must be why the sun is losing so much of its mass every day and why we are debating global warming). Evolutionism has got to be one of the most UNscientific theories ever.
Wow, not only are you clueless about real science, you aren't even keeping up with trends (one might laughingly call them "advancements") in creation science.
Study more carefully what the Second Law of thermodynamics says. Pay special attention to the phrase "in a closed system". Please then take notice of the fact that the Earth is not a closed system. Realize, as finally even many wild-eyed creationists have eventually had to do, that you can't use the Second Law to rule out evolution because the Second Law doesn't apply to a non-closed system like the Earth, which is bathed in a constant influx of energy from the Sun.
Comments
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.
Really? Cause....
Exodus 15:26: ""...If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the LORD that healeth thee."
\tII Kings 20:5: "...Thus saith Jehovah, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will heal thee..."
\tPsalms 34:17-19: "The righteous cry, and the LORD heareth, and delivereth them out of all their troubles. The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit. Many are the afflictions of the righteous: but the LORD delivereth him out of them all."
\tPsalms 103: "Bless the Lord, O my soul,...And forget none of His benefits; Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; Who healeth all thy diseases"
\tIsaiah 57:18-21: "I have seen his ways, and will heal him: I will lead him also, and restore comforts unto him and to his mourners. I create the fruit of the lips: Peace, peace, to him that is far off and to him that is near, saith Jehovah; and I will heal him. But the wicked are like the troubled sea; for it cannot rest, and its waters cast up mire and dirt. There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked"
\tJeremiah 30:17: "For I will restore health unto thee, and I will heal thee of thy wounds, saith Jehovah; because they have called thee an outcast..."
\tHosea 6:1: "Come, and let us return unto Jehovah; for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up."
Matt 21:22: "And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive."
\tMark 16:18 "they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."
\tJames 5:14-15: "Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save him that is sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, it shall be forgiven him."
Doctors? Pffft. You obviously lack faith. God will heal your diseases and injuries, if you ask: the Bible couldn't be more clear. I guess you just believe in the Word of the Lord when it's convenient. Just ask the Christian Scientists. Or are they reading the Bible wrong? Uh oh.
\t
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.
Wheeeee! It's fun when sentences turn into snakes that eat their own tail! And that little tsk-tsking at the end? It's like being scolded by a street loon for not avoiding the face-eating crab monsters!
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.
And yet, strangely, I am not reassured.
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).
The particulars of evolutionary theory, the voluminous data that supports it, and the striking ancillary support from other disciplines have been presented ad nauseum, in thread after thread after thread, on these boards and beyond, in every conceivable medium, stretching from here to Timbuktu.
The response from Jesus Land has pretty uniformly been some variation on "is not", so you'll forgive me if I forgo the lengthy process of yet again citing the readily available data on the off chance that this time you'll slap your hand to your forehead and go "Oh! That giant mountain of evidence! Man, what was I thinking!"
Anyway, as I say, the "scientific refutation" bit is not worth arguing with you folks, given your, uh, perspective on the nature of how science works and what a fact looks like as it sinks its teeth into your pious ass.
I have never called the Bible "weird", although that characterization is at least odd.
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.
Yeah. Weird.
However, when people get down to it and really study, for the most part, they arrive at the same conclusions.
Gosh, that works out splendidly then, doesn't it? Disagreement equals failure to really study. So, like, will Jesus Land have special classes where failure is not an option? I believe they're called "reeducation camps". Christian Scientists, I'm looking at you!
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?
See previous comment on the efficacy of same.
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.
And you are the soul of discretion, friend. On the other hand, you're not arguing with the aggressively ignorant.
There is an old saying: "If you throw a rock over a fence, the dog that barks loudest is the one that got hit".
There's another: "Arguing with the aggressively ignorant is tedious to point of wanting to make you want to tear your face off".
With a topic like this, no doubt someone is going to get riled, but let's take that energy and be constructive with it.
I agree. Gather up the kin folk and get you to Jesus Land so you can enjoy the fruits of your faith unencumbered by the 21st century and its godless fake science.
Really? Cause....
Indeed. God heals. He is God after all. He made us and He heals us according to His sovereign will. there are cases in the bible where god heals and where God choosed to not heal (as with the Apostle Paul) becuase He has a greater purpose in allowing somehting to go on in someones life. So yes, he heals, but NO, there is nothing against doctors in the bible. The only place where anything even remotely negative is said is not even referring to doctors at all, but the fact that Asa sought only the doctors and not God. and the doctors were not able ot help him. he died. Jesus said "they that are well need not the physician, but they that are sick."
The Bible does not put down doctors. Doctors are good. In fact hospices started out as a ministry by Bible believing people. Hospitals sprang from that. Look it up.
Unfortunately, there are some who will try to ignore some parts of the Bible and say (like the Christian scientists do) that you can just "believe it away". That is not what the bible teaches.
Doctors have a good ministry and God heals. Both are true.
Doctors? Pffft. You obviously lack faith. God will heal your diseases and injuries, if you ask: the Bible couldn't be more clear. I guess you just believe in the Word of the Lord when it's convenient. Just ask the Christian Scientists. Or are they reading the Bible wrong? Uh oh.
I Think we all know "Christian Scientists" are anything but. Their is no science to saying "If I don't believe it, it is not real".
They have different beliefs than than what the Bible plainly puts forward.
\t
Wheeeee! It's fun when sentences turn into snakes that eat their own tail! And that little tsk-tsking at the end? It's like being scolded by a street loon for not avoiding the face-eating crab monsters!
And that has nothing to do with what I was quoted on. Thanks for sharing!
And yet, strangely, I am not reassured.
And yet, strangley, that was not my intent.
The particulars of evolutionary theory, the voluminous data that supports it, and the striking ancillary support from other disciplines have been presented ad nauseum, in thread after thread after thread, on these boards and beyond, in every conceivable medium, stretching from here to Timbuktu.
Ah. Voluminous data. there is always this claim of irrefutable tremendous amounts of data. too bad it is never put forth. When it is, it is historically dismantled. There are voluminous THEORIES, that's for sure, many of which contradict each other. None that help stem the confusion. Really, it is a shame.
The response from Jesus Land has pretty uniformly been some variation on "is not", so you'll forgive me if I forgo the lengthy process of yet again citing the readily available data on the off chance that this time you'll slap your hand to your forehead and go "Oh! That giant mountain of evidence! Man, what was I thinking!"
Again, WHAT giant mountain? there is NO evidence. Only theory. they find a pigs tooth and theorize. they find a man with rickets and theorize. they find an ape looking skull... it came from an ape! they find a man who has some ape like features... whoa! it turns out to be the heavyweight champion of the world, Nicolai Valuev! today! There is simply no evidence. That is just the way it is.
Anyway, as I say, the "scientific refutation" bit is not worth arguing with you folks, given your, uh, perspective on the nature of how science works and what a fact looks like as it sinks its teeth into your pious ass.
Well, you have certainly spent a lot of time talking about nothing then. What you are saying is that you are copping out. You try to tell me that I don't know facts, yet you offer ZERO, while I have tried to offer relevant facts. that is alright I guess. That is just who you are. I have been trying to talk science. You can leave the Bible out if you want. Pure science. Let's go.
I have never called the Bible "weird", although that characterization is at least odd.
Neither have I, but what you put forth as biblical meaning was a weird take, that had nothing to do with what the passage was saying. It's just like making it up as you go along. You wouldn't do that with an instruction booklet or a history book, and you shouldn't do that with the Bible as it is both a historical record and an instruction for living.
Yeah. Weird.
That's what I said. Weird.
Gosh, that works out splendidly then, doesn't it? Disagreement equals failure to really study. So, like, will Jesus Land have special classes where failure is not an option? I believe they're called "reeducation camps". Christian Scientists, I'm looking at you!
Uh... A Creation Scientist is not quite the same as a "Christian Scientist". Just thought you should know.
See previous comment on the efficacy of same.
And then re-read the response.
And you are the soul of discretion, friend. On the other hand, you're not arguing with the aggressively ignorant.
ok... Actually, ignorance is usually passive, except when someone purposefully hides and closes their mind to something that challenges them, so I suppose you mean "actively ignorant"
There's another: "Arguing with the aggressively ignorant is tedious to point of wanting to make you want to tear your face off".
Although, I sympathize with that quote, I am not at the point of trying to hurt myself.
I agree. Gather up the kin folk and get you to Jesus Land so you can enjoy the fruits of your faith unencumbered by the 21st century and its godless fake science.
while I find that comment pretty funny, it really is sad. Jesus Land will come soon enough. Life is not that long. science is science. thoery is theory and the thoeries that have some evidence to them should be looked at further. the ones that don't should be recognized as such. Evolutionism is in such a dillemma. This is evident in the numerous responses in this post with zero ammunition to them.
Evolution is a belief system. You have to believe in it to try to interpret the world around you. Unfortunatley, there is so much evidence to the contrary, that some even brilliant men are forced to sound foolish when they take a glorious discovery and then play make-believe. Darwin is a good example of this with the human eye. Even a one-celled paramecium is so complex that the chances for all of its features to have evolved at the same time are so far out that it is logically impossible. for the vacules and the nucleus and the spines that shoot out, etc to have formed at all are impossible. Then to try to account for them forming at the same time (because if they did not, the beginnings of that creature would have died, not being able to feed itself). Then, you have to account for how the food evolved and how all the parts of it had to form together at exactly the same time, etc. you can go on and on.. how carbon dioxide, hydrogen and oxygen all have to work together to support the various life forms that exist (and how they are perpetuated by those various life forms).
And the big bang theory. where did the gas come from? How did that begin? In fact, that theory is so full of hot air :-) that it is ridiculous. It makes more sense to say there is an eternal God than eternal gas.
Ah. Voluminous data. there is always this claim of irrefutable tremendous amounts of data. too bad it is never put forth. When it is, it is historically dismantled. There are voluminous THEORIES, that's for sure, many of which contradict each other.
Again, WHAT giant mountain? there is NO evidence. Only theory. ...There is simply no evidence.
Looks like someone doesn't know the definitions of "theory" and "data".
Again, WHAT giant mountain? there is NO evidence. Only theory.
The fact that you'd say "there is NO evidence. Only theory" in and of itself proves you haven't the faintest clue of what you're talking about -- you can't know anything about the scientific method or the meanings of the words "evidence" and "theory" and still say this.
When you've cured yourself interpreting the word "theory" only in the colloquial sense of "hunch" or "wild guess" or "something not yet proven", please come back and try again.
In the meantime, you might want to carry around some rope and grappling hooks to keep yourself securely anchored to the ground in case that crazy "theory of gravity" gives out on us.
I wonder if 9second knows that most mainline Christian denominations, not to mention the Catholic church, have issued official statements supporting biological evolution? Sure, they believe God started it, or even guides it, but they don't deny the processes of evolution as 9second does. I don't know of any mainline Christian denominations that have officially rejected evolution. So not only is 9second out of step with all of the earth sciences and biological sciences, he's also out of step with Christian churches.
Obviously, mainline Christian denominations have failed to read their Bibles closely enough and come away with weird ideas.
So not only is 9second out of step with all of the earth sciences and biological sciences, he's also out of step with Christian churches.
He's only out of step with so-called Christian churches which have lost their way, which have been led astray by Materialism and seduced by thinking their own intellects are better than God's Word!
(It's too damned easy to simulate fundy thinking sometimes.)
Obviously, mainline Christian denominations have failed to read their Bibles closely enough and come away with weird ideas.
Beat me to it while I was still typing.
I'm enjoying this thread.
Well...you're welcome.
Beat me to it while I was still typing.
I was just playing around and made this (from an 80's cartoon)- then I read the latest episode of this thread - what can I say - divine prophetic intervention.
They look like cool Aliens that we might meet. If we meet aliens. Not the "greys" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greys) and what not.
//Evidence - "the available body of facts indicating whether a proposition [* read THEORY*] is true or valid."
Seems that somebody other than me is mistaken about the meanings of these words here..
Once again, there is NO evidence to support the THEORY of evolutionism.
Evolutionism is not science. It is a theory.
You say that evolution is fact, but cannot support it. Just becuase you say it many times does not make it true. there has to be factual support. There is none.
Every so called proof has been proven to either be bad science where the find was actually a creature we see today, or a fraud, where people got together, created something and flat out lied to support their belief in evolution. go check out Piltdown Man on that one and then go into you local school and ask yourself why that example is still in the textbooks after being proven to be a fraud.
I wonder if 9second knows that most mainline Christian denominations, not to mention the Catholic church, have issued official statements supporting biological evolution? Sure, they believe God started it, or even guides it, but they don't deny the processes of evolution as 9second does. I don't know of any mainline Christian denominations that have officially rejected evolution. So not only is 9second out of step with all of the earth sciences and biological sciences, he's also out of step with Christian churches.
I am aware that Catholicism has embraced evolution. i am also aware that Catholicism elevates Mary to the postiion of Jesus and that they teach that Mary was a virgin forever, somehow leaving the explanation of Jesus' brothers left to the pondereances of confusions everywhere. Only Jesus was virgin born. Then she went on to have a normal married life with Joseph and bore children the way all women do.
i am also aware that catholicism teaches that the bread and wine at communion actually somehow transform into real blood and flesh when you eat it. that in spite of the fact that it still looks, feels, smells and tastes the same and that the actualy ingredients of it never change.
in other words, I am aware that the catholic church says some interesting things that do not have any measureable basis in truth. embracing evolution is just a step of trying to look like they are relevant. Martin Luther made a break with the Catholic Church a long time ago. Most smart people do the same. No mainline christian denomination recognizes the catholic church as correct. Maybe the Episcopal church and possibly the methodists, but that is all.
I could care less what any denomination says. If I did, I could bring up Calvary Chapel, The Baptists, the Assemblies of God, and many more who share my view. I am not interested in who is right. I am interested in what is right. And so should you be.
The fact that you'd say "there is NO evidence. Only theory" in and of itself proves you haven't the faintest clue of what you're talking about -- you can't know anything about the scientific method or the meanings of the words "evidence" and "theory" and still say this.
When you've cured yourself interpreting the word "theory" only in the colloquial sense of "hunch" or "wild guess" or "something not yet proven", please come back and try again.
In the meantime, you might want to carry around some rope and grappling hooks to keep yourself securely anchored to the ground in case that crazy "theory of gravity" gives out on us.
Dude, it sounds like first you shoul invest in a dictionary to learn the meanings of theory and evidence. Next, take another look at the scientific method with the correct understanding of said terms. Finally, learn the difference between theory and scientific law. There is a law of gravity, not a theory.
There is a theory of evolution, not a law. you need to see repeatable, irrefutable evidence for that. Law in science is fact. Evolutionism will never acheive that. It is a glamourized fairy tale. There is however the 2nd law of thermodynamics which states that everything is slowing down and breaking down. That fits with the creation model that says everything was created a certain way and then winds down. According to evolution, laws of science dont' matter -- the world and universe is only getting better (yeah, that must be why the sun is losing so much of its mass every day and why we are debating global warming). Evolutionism has got to be one of the most UNscientific theories ever.
'm enjoying this thread.
Me too.
Dude, it sounds like first you shoul invest in a dictionary to learn the meanings of theory and evidence.
You're using a dictionary to define scientific terms?
You're gonna get creamed.
This is going to be fun to watch.
Once again, there is NO evidence to support the THEORY of evolutionism.
Evolutionism is not science. It is a theory.
You say that evolution is fact, but cannot support it. Just becuase you say it many times does not make it true. there has to be factual support. There is none.
Every so called proof has been proven to either be bad science where the find was actually a creature we see today, or a fraud, where people got together, created something and flat out lied to support their belief in evolution. go check out Piltdown Man on that one and then go into you local school and ask yourself why that example is still in the textbooks after being proven to be a fraud.
Wow, you got it bad. I'm surprised the village elders let you use the internets. It's devil magic, you know.
I am aware that Catholicism has embraced evolution. i am also aware that Catholicism elevates Mary to the postiion of Jesus and that they teach that Mary was a virgin forever, somehow leaving the explanation of Jesus' brothers left to the pondereances of confusions everywhere. Only Jesus was virgin born. Then she went on to have a normal married life with Joseph and bore children the way all women do.
i am also aware that catholicism teaches that the bread and wine at communion actually somehow transform into real blood and flesh when you eat it. that in spite of the fact that it still looks, feels, smells and tastes the same and that the actualy ingredients of it never change.
in other words, I am aware that the catholic church says some interesting things that do not have any measureable basis in truth. embracing evolution is just a step of trying to look like they are relevant. Martin Luther made a break with the Catholic Church a long time ago. Most smart people do the same. No mainline christian denomination recognizes the catholic church as correct. Maybe the Episcopal church and possibly the methodists, but that is all.
OK, I'm really, really sorry we brought it up.... (double checks location of exits)
I could care less what any denomination says. If I did, I could bring up Calvary Chapel, The Baptists, the Assemblies of God, and many more who share my view. I am not interested in who is right. I am interested in what is right. And so should you be.
Right, the various tribes of Jesus Land. I'll just go and break it to the Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists, Mormons, Presbyterians, Amish, Quakers, and the United Church of Christ that they're not invited on account of not being, um, smart enough. I'm sure they'll be..... devastated.
Dude, it sounds like first you shoul invest in a dictionary to learn the meanings of theory and evidence. Next, take another look at the scientific method with the correct understanding of said terms. Finally, learn the difference between theory and scientific law. There is a law of gravity, not a theory.
See, this where you really shine, when you follow up on gibberish that suggests you have never, ever in your life been exposed to actual science by scolding people for not being sufficiently rigorous. It's sort of charmingly perverse, in a tear your face off of kind of way.
There is a theory of evolution, not a law. you need to see repeatable, irrefutable evidence for that. Law in science is fact. Evolutionism will never acheive that. It is a glamourized fairy tale. There is however the 2nd law of thermodynamics which states that everything is slowing down and breaking down. That fits with the creation model that says everything was created a certain way and then winds down. According to evolution, laws of science dont' matter -- the world and universe is only getting better (yeah, that must be why the sun is losing so much of its mass every day and why we are debating global warming). Evolutionism has got to be one of the most UNscientific theories ever.
Bravo. Your closing flourish makes your previous gibberish look like tightly constructed argumentation, marshaling, as it does, whole new, vastly misconstrued nuggets from disciplines you know absolutely nothing about to support your primary area of ignorance.
It is.......well, actually it's just depressing.
Evolutionism is not science. It is a theory.
Theories aren't science now? Oh, this is rich.
You quote one dictionary definition of "theory" which has nothing to do with the specialized scientific use of the word, and think you've proved something. Well, you have... that you're clueless.
Many specialties have specialized vocabulary, where words have special meanings either not found in standard dictionaries, or found only among the non-primary dictionary definitions. You're just showing your ignorance now, like someone vehemently insisting that a hockey player couldn't possibly have scored a hat trick because he never performed a trick with a hat.
Please don't convince yourself that dull-headed literalism using the wrong definitions of words amounts to some sort of victory.
Dude, it sounds like first you shoul invest in a dictionary to learn the meanings of theory and evidence. Next, take another look at the scientific method with the correct understanding of said terms. Finally, learn the difference between theory and scientific law. There is a law of gravity, not a theory.
There are both a theory and a law of gravity, actually. And curiously enough (curious only if you're laboring under common misconceptions), Newton's Law of Gravity proved to be less accurate than Einstein's Theory of Gravity.
A "law" is not greater, nor lesser, that a "theory". A "fact" is not greater, nor lesser, than a "theory". Each of those words applies to different conceptual domains, not to some linear scale of certainty vs. doubt.
A law is a descriptive. A fact is evidentiary. A theory is explanatory.
There is however the 2nd law of thermodynamics which states that everything is slowing down and breaking down. That fits with the creation model that says everything was created a certain way and then winds down. According to evolution, laws of science dont' matter -- the world and universe is only getting better (yeah, that must be why the sun is losing so much of its mass every day and why we are debating global warming). Evolutionism has got to be one of the most UNscientific theories ever.
Wow, not only are you clueless about real science, you aren't even keeping up with trends (one might laughingly call them "advancements") in creation science.
Study more carefully what the Second Law of thermodynamics says. Pay special attention to the phrase "in a closed system". Please then take notice of the fact that the Earth is not a closed system. Realize, as finally even many wild-eyed creationists have eventually had to do, that you can't use the Second Law to rule out evolution because the Second Law doesn't apply to a non-closed system like the Earth, which is bathed in a constant influx of energy from the Sun.
Slap self on forehead and say, "d'oh!"
They look like cool Aliens that we might meet. If we meet aliens. Not the "greys" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greys) and what not.
Its from this - a series of claymation shorts i loved from my childhood- in my spare time Im going to try to recreate an episode in cg.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oe2vpM_eJRw
Its just fitting for this thread - in more ways than 1
"For there is always something down there, lurking in the dark waiting to come out...."