1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Discourse on Creation and Evolution

Discussion in 'Interfaith Discussion' started by iris89, Dec 27, 2004.

  1. iris89

    iris89 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    434
    Ratings:
    +21
    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,
    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
     
  2. lilithu

    lilithu The Devil's Advocate

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2004
    Messages:
    12,031
    Ratings:
    +1,864
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    36,895
    Ratings:
    +10,253
    Religion:
    Judaism
    I don't know about you being the "High Priestess of Cheese" but, when it comes to dealing with nonsense, you are remarkably gouda.
     
  4. iris89

    iris89 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    434
    Ratings:
    +21
    Hi lilithu

    Your statement is not correct,


    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,

    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,
    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
     
  5. lilithu

    lilithu The Devil's Advocate

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2004
    Messages:
    12,031
    Ratings:
    +1,864
    My POINT is that he does not.


    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.


    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.
     
  6. iris89

    iris89 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    434
    Ratings:
    +21
    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
     
  7. Mr Spinkles

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    10,985
    Ratings:
    +1,676
    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).
     
  8. iris89

    iris89 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    434
    Ratings:
    +21
    Hi Mr_Spinkles

    You missed the point as shown by your statement,

    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
     
  9. iris89

    iris89 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    434
    Ratings:
    +21
    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
     
  10. Sunstone

    Sunstone De Diablo Del Fora
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    70,950
    Ratings:
    +29,155
    Religion:
    Erotic Dancing Girls
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. iris89

    iris89 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    434
    Ratings:
    +21
    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
     
  12. Ceridwen018

    Ceridwen018 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,768
    Ratings:
    +399
    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.
     
  13. iris89

    iris89 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    434
    Ratings:
    +21


    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,


    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
     
  14. Ceridwen018

    Ceridwen018 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,768
    Ratings:
    +399
    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.
     
  15. iris89

    iris89 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    434
    Ratings:
    +21
    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
     
  16. t3gah

    t3gah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,125
    Ratings:
    +48
    Personally if the text above was my response I'd leave off the words I highlighted in red
     
  17. iris89

    iris89 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    434
    Ratings:
    +21
    [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
     
Loading...