Discourse on Creation and Evolution

iris89 · Jan 19, 2005

Hi Mr_SpinklesWe all make mistakes, think nothing of it.

But what do you think about how some can be so intolerant as to kill/murder another by burning him to death in the name of their religion and with the approval of the 'top dog' in their religious group over a scientific theory that they believed, but was wrong. Surely not a true Christian act as we could never imagine Christ doing and/or ordering such an unloving thing to be done, nor his Father, Almighty God (YHWH) who the Bible says at 1 John 4:8, "He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love." (American Standard Version; ASV). Surely this act and the group committing it are some of those that 2 Corinthians 4:4 applies to, "in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn [upon them]." (ASV).

With respect your statement,

I still disagree with you that Darwinian evolution can be compared to the Ptolemaic (or geocentric) model of the solar system, but perhaps that's a topic for a different thread.

It in my opinion is a good comparison, but prehaps it would be better to compare it to the other, now proven wrong theory, that the earth was flat since the Bible at Isaiah 40:22 clearly says, "[It is] he that sitteth above the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in;" (ASV) as this is actually as can be seen shown wrong in the Bible as is evolution as the source of life since the Bible says in Genesis and elsewhere, Genesis 1:21, " And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that moveth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind: and God saw that it was good." (ASV); and at Genesis 1:27, "And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." (ASV). I think that would be a better comparision as the Bible clearly shows both theories to be without basis. For more details on the Bible and its importance, go to:

Civilization and the Bible

http://forum.bismikaallahuma.org:/viewtopic.php?t=5075

and,

STANDARDS ARE PROMULGATED NOT PROVEN BUT USED:

http://forum.bismikaallahuma.org:/viewtopic.php?t=5076

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

lilithu · Jan 19, 2005

iris89 said:
So, that is what is expected of any good writer of which I am one. However, just because a writer quotes another does in no way infer that he/she is in agreement with all they say and/or their life style.

It does however, strongly imply that you are in agreement with at least a good portion of what they say. I take it then that you are in agreement with his conclusion, wrongfully deduced, and plead not only ignorance but apathy regarding how he got there. When a good writer quotes another she usually at least understands what the other person was saying.

Jayhawker Soule · Jan 19, 2005

I don't know about you being the "High Priestess of Cheese" but, when it comes to dealing with nonsense, you are remarkably gouda.

iris89 · Jan 19, 2005

Hi lilithu

Your statement is not correct,

It does however, strongly imply that you are in agreement with at least a good portion of what they say. I take it then that you are in agreement with his conclusion, wrongfully deduced, and plead not only ignorance but apathy regarding how he got there. When a good writer quotes another she usually at least understands what the other person was saying.

Not necessarily, I am NOT a biologist, but consider his e-mail to me something worth sharing with others. He knows his field, I do not as I am a Bible researcher and not a biologist. I found his e-mail interesting and I believe most will find it interesting.

His statement,

so why do we resemble lower animals? it is simple: we all came from the SAME god and were created by the SAME elements and live in the SAME environment so we should expect such similarities.

Makes sense and is quite in line with Genesis 1:20, "And God said, Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven." (American Standard Version; ASV); and Genesis 1:27, " And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." (ASV).

And his statement,

according to some evolutionary theories our ancestor that branched into the human lineage and chimp lineage existed seven million yrs ago. it is also stated that we have about 3 billion base pairs in our dna which 3% or 90 million is expressed or used. compared to chimps there is only about a 1% difference from our base pairs to theirs.in other words their dna matches ours
by about 99% which accounts for similarities.so only only 1% of 90 mill or about 90,000 base pairs in our dna is really what makes us human.

Makes sense and is definately in line with what I have read in various science Journals and on the internet. And of course it would be in line with Genesis scriptures above. So I do not know what your problem is with it?

Also, I have written a lot, but you have failed to deal with any of my articles on the wonderful gifts God (YHWH) has provided for us, why is that? I would very much like to discuss rare fruiting plants.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

lilithu · Jan 19, 2005

iris89 said:
He knows his field.

My POINT is that he does not.

iris89 said:
And his statement,...Makes sense and is definately in line with what I have read in various science Journals and on the internet.

Given that you readily admit (and demonstrate) that you know nothing about science, I question whether you are in the position to judge whether it "makes sense" or not.

iris89 said:
And of course it would be in line with Genesis scriptures above. So I do not know what your problem is with it?

I've tried to explain what my problem with it is, to which you responded that you had no interest in understanding the science whatsoever. That for you it falls under the category of "so what." Which is where I am filing this thread.

iris89 · Jan 19, 2005

Hi lilithu

I have already shown you that certain parts of what he said are in-line with the Bible so that is a very good recommendation as all true science begins with him who created all, Almighty God (YHWH); therefore, although I have a fair knowledge of science and math, I do not have to have a complete knowledge. In fact, I am sure no one person understands all the aspects of science now knows, so what!

However, I do have a working knowledge of science and that is sufficient. If you wish to get down into the minute in a particular area, you should take it up with someone knowledgeable on that particular minute area, and NOT with an independent Bible researcher such as myself. That is only common sense.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

Mr Spinkles · Jan 19, 2005

iris89 said:
But what do you think about how some can be so intolerant as to kill/murder another by burning him to death in the name of their religion and with the approval of the 'top dog' in their religious group over a scientific theory that they believed, but was wrong.

I think their actions are despicable, whether or not their beliefs were wrong. However, as I explain here: http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...read.php?t=2518 , the rejection of the Ptolemaic model was a triumph of scientific observation over divine revelation (not the other way around).

iris89 · Jan 19, 2005

Hi Mr_Spinkles

You missed the point as shown by your statement,

I think their actions are despicable, whether or not their beliefs were wrong.

If individuals had correct beliefs in line with being true followers of Christ, the Prince of Peace, they would NEVER, NO NEVER, commit such despicable acts, but would act in harmony with Matthew 22:36-40 where Jesus (Yeshua) said, "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 And he said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second like [unto it] is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. 40 On these two commandments the whole law hangeth, and the prophets." (American Standard Version; ASV).

Salvation and repentance, not science is the important thing for a true follower of Jesus (Yeshua).

To learn more about Salvation, go to:

Discourse on Salvation

http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=70

and, on repentance, go to:

WHY REPENTANCE IS NECESSARY:

http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=72

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

iris89 · Jan 25, 2005

Hi Everyone

A standard is just that, something to check/compare to that serves as a guide. Referring to a standard is NOT CIRCULAR REASONING as I have previously shown. This was clearly stated some years ago by the International Standards Organization. Here we see some who apparently do NOT like the Bible trying to downgrade its position as the ultimate standard, but it is the only standard that our creator has given mankind, the Bible is the Standard for all those seeking to do God's (YHWH's) will.

For more information, go to:

STANDARDS ARE PROMULGATED NOT PROVEN BUT USED:

http://forum.bismikaallahuma.org:/viewtopic.php?t=5076
Your Friend in Christ Iris89

Sunstone · Jan 25, 2005

When it comes to truth, it seems to me that the standards of science are considerably higher than the standards of the bible. Science demands reason supported by evidence subjected to rigerous peer review, while the bible basically demands faith irregardless of reason. Using biblical standards for truth, you'd be lucky to guess that evolution was true, and you'd probably guess wrong anyway.

iris89 · Jan 26, 2005

Hi Sunstone

You overlook the fact that the Bible's author who inspired over 40 faithful men under divine inspiration to put his thoughts into the words of men is the supreme soverign who created all, and science at its best is just the process of discovery of scientific facts that he originally put there. Quite a different case.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

Ceridwen018 · Jan 26, 2005

Hi Sunstone

You overlook the fact that the Bible's author who inspired over 40 faithful men under divine inspiration to put his thoughts into the words of men is the supreme soverign who created all, and science at its best is just the process of discovery of scientific facts that he originally put there. Quite a different case.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

And you are overlooking the fact that the Bible's divine inspiration is pure assumption, based on religiously founded circular arguments.

If there is any truth in the Bible, it can most certainly not be evidenced. Hence, the problem with Creationism.

iris89 · Jan 26, 2005

Reference to a STANDARD is not circular reasoning. A standard is by definition something to judge by, and the Bible is the ultimate standard as the Creator (YHWH) of all is its author. He inspired over 40 faithful men to put his thoughts into the words of men so they would have a God (YHWH) given standard to guide them and for use in judging all else. For more details, go to:

STANDARDS ARE PROMULGATED NOT PROVEN BUT USED:

http://p197.ezboard.com/fabnafrm10.showMessage?topicID=92.topic

As I said elsewhere to others who express opinions over which they do not know the facts,

I am NOT defending any one translation as there is no PERFECT translation. All most all translations are defective to because of either translator bias, lack of idiomatic ancient language usage, lack of translator skills, lack of access to all ancient MSs, etc. Some more so than others. In English, I have found the following to be the most accurate - the New English Bible (NEB), The New World Translation (NWT), An American Translation (AAT), American Standard Version (ASV), and an interlingua lexicon of the New Testament by Dr. J.J. Griesbach [a word for word translation of the Koine Greek in the Vatican MS 1209 into English]. I am constantly comparing one translation with others, not only in English, but in my native language and others. I have found in the inspired 66 books that there is better than 95% agreement in substance between translations even if the wording may vary. Recently I have been quoting a lot from the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible as many readers are Catholic; before this I quoted mainly from the American Standard Version (ASV). As the late Dr. Edgar Goodspeed, of the University of Chicago and the head of the translation committee that translated An American Translation (AAT) once said, the way of judging a translation is whether the translators were consistent in rendering translational constructs and/or similar translational constructs the same in all cases or whether they rendered certain passages using the same and/or similar translational constructs at different places different to placate their biases.

Your opinion of the New World Translation (NWT) is like your opinions on doctrine, NOT in accordance with fact. Furthermore, it shows that you have no concept with respect the differences between a literal translation such as the New World Translation (NWT), Youngs Literal Translation (YLT), MS Vatican 1209, and free flowing translations such as the American Standard Version (ASV), the New English Bible (NEB), New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), etc. Also, you have no concept of how experts in the field quantify the quality of a translation. Dr. Jason Benuhn, of Northern Arizona University and Dr. Rolf Furuli, of the University of Oslo, the two leading Bible translation and ancient language experts in the world strongly disagree with you. In fact, Dr. Jason Benuhn has written a book comparing the leading modern Bible translations with one another and specifically citing the translational shortcomings of each, Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament published by University Press of America, isbn# 0761825568. The problem is so many express unfounded opinions on both Bible translations and doctrine that they do not have the foggiest knowledge of the facts on. This is patently ridicules and dishonest. I for my part do not do such things, I go out and research the facts and then do not present opinions, but the facts based on my research.

Some should learn what a standard is, i.e., something to be referred to which defines what is and is not correct. This was stated in similar words many years ago by the International Standards Organization in Paris, France.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

Ceridwen018 · Jan 26, 2005

Reference to a STANDARD is not circular reasoning. A standard is by definition something to judge by, and the Bible is the ultimate standard as the Creator (YHWH) of all is its author. He inspired over 40 faithful men to put his thoughts into the words of men so they would have a God (YHWH) given standard to guide them and for use in judging all else. For more details, go to:

Standard or no, it is still circular reasoning. "The Bible is divinely inspired by god because it says in the Bible that it is divinly inspired by god." is the poster child for a merry-go-round argument, but I digress.

To get back on topic, I am interested in your reasoning for the Creation "theory", aside from the writings of the Bible.

iris89 · Jan 27, 2005

Hi Everyone

Some need to comprehend/grasp what a standard is as it is obvious some are ignorant of what a standard is. Some lack basic knowledge of what a standard is and even think refering to one is circular reasoning but the dictionary defines a standard as, "noun: a basis for comparison; a reference point against which other things can be evaluated " Clearly a standard is a basis for comparison, a reference point.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

t3gah · Jan 27, 2005

iris89 said:
Hi Everyone

Some need to comprehend/grasp what a standard is as it is obvious some are ignorant of what a standard is. Some lack basic knowledge of what a standard is and even think refering to one is circular reasoning but the dictionary defines a standard as, "noun: a basis for comparison; a reference point against which other things can be evaluated " Clearly a standard is a basis for comparison, a reference point.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

Personally if the text above was my response I'd leave off the words I highlighted in red

iris89 · Jan 27, 2005

[size=-1]

Hi t3gah

English is NOT my native language, but I comprehend what the English word standard means. Therefore, all native English speaking individuals should, and it disturbs me when people do not even know their native language, yet feel like making untrue statements such as insinuating I am using circular reasoning when in fact I am not. By definition, referring to a standard in the English language or the equivalent word in my language in no way implies circular reasoning and all should be aware of that fact. All English dictionaries basically state that a standard is "a basis for comparison; a reference point against which other things can be evaluated."

Let's look at a couple:

2a. An acknowledged measure of comparison for quantitative or qualitative value; a criterion. b. An object that under specified conditions defines, represents, or records the magnitude of a unit. 3. The set proportion by weight of gold or silver to alloy metal prescribed for use in coinage. 4. The commodity or commodities used to back a monetary system. [source - The American Heritage Dictionary]

usual rather than special, especially when thought of as being correct or acceptable:
White is the standard colour for this model of refrigerator.
These are standard procedures for handling radioactive waste.
The metre is the standard unit for measuring length in the SI system.
MAINLY UK Your new TV comes with a two year guarantee as standard.[source - Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary]

3. That which is established as a rule or model by authority, custom, or general consent; criterion; test.

The court, which used to be the standard of property and correctness of speech. Swift.

A disposition to preserve, and an ability to improve, taken together, would be my standard of a statesman. Burke.[source - Webster Dictionary 1913]

1) Something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison. 2) An object regarded as the most common size or form of its kind. 3) A rule or principle that is used as a basis for judgment. 4) An average or normal quality, quantity, or level. (Source: European Environment Agency (EEA), European Topic Centre on Catalogue of Data Sources (ETC/CDS): General Multilingual Environmental Thesaurus Term Detail)[source U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Terminology Reference System]

It is high time that all know their native language and not take issue with none native speakers who use their language correctly, doing so is discrimination.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

[/size]D

Discourse on Creation and Evolution

iris89

Active Member

lilithu

The Devil's Advocate

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --

iris89

Active Member

lilithu

The Devil's Advocate

iris89

Active Member

Mr Spinkles

Mr

iris89

Active Member

iris89

Active Member

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora

iris89

Active Member

Ceridwen018

Well-Known Member

iris89

Active Member

Ceridwen018

Well-Known Member

iris89

Active Member

t3gah

Well-Known Member

iris89

Active Member