Just Accidental?

[Hockeycowboy]

The scientific community disagrees with you. It considers the theory correct and the evidence in accord with it.

No, there are quite a few scientists, including many biologists, who state that CD doesn't fit the evidence.

And although the majority say it does, their disagreement on how it progressed is epic. Their arguments among themselves are comical to watch at times, each group presenting their own hypotheses, while others rail against it.

What a house of cards! It's collapse will be great.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

But your standard for belief is far less than that.

Wrong. Our basis for trusting in the Bible rests on a solid foundation! Archaeology (one of the sciences, btw) is constantly finding new and tangible evidence -- evidence, not conjecture -- that strengthens our faith.

I don't experience any of that from Christianity. Its models of justice and wisdom are far from mine.

With mainstream Christianity? Yeah, we agree. (The Apostle Paul wrote about those who "publicly declare they know God, but they disown Him by their works." [Titus 1:16] How? One reason was they were "disobedient." Now, did Jesus command us to 'love our brother', or to kill our brother if told to? I think you know. [John 13:34-35] As Christians, we're even to 'love our enemy'! [Matthew 5:44] And what is Christendom's reputation? Enough said.)

(Mahatma Gandhi once said to a professed Christian, "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians." )

But then, really, Deeje was referring to justice within the animal kingdom -- or lack of it, I should say. (Did you purposely miss the point?)

 

[metis]

Wrong. Our basis for trusting in the Bible rests on a solid foundation! Archaeology (one of the sciences, btw) is constantly finding new and tangible evidence -- evidence, not conjecture -- that strengthens our faith.

And sometimes the other way around. I've studied in Israel, including working for a short time on a dig just west of of Jerusalem, and the archaeology "foundation" for the scriptures is mixed.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

And sometimes the other way around. I've studied in Israel, including working for a short time on a dig just west of of Jerusalem, and the archaeology "foundation" for the scriptures is mixed.

Can you cite examples (from objective, unbiased sources)?

(Because I can cite many, re: Governor Pilate, King David, Hezekiah's tunnel, etc., etc., places and people once considered fictitious which archaeology went on to verify their existence. Nowadays, People are always wanting to discredit theBible; just more proof that society is under Satan's control.....as prophesied. Everything originating from God is under attack. Even marriage.)

And remember: lack of evidence is not proof.

 

[metis]

Can you cite examples (from objective, unbiased sources)?

I'm really not going to waste my time or yours simply because there's plenty of information out there to verify what I posted.

BTW, let me recommend you buy the "Jewish Study Bible", and the reason for this is that it is the best single Bible ("O.T.") with commentary that I have run into when it comes to both theological and archaeological honesty. It points out where there are "variations" between the scriptures on the same narrative, and they also point out where the text simply does not match what the other pieces of evidence are indicating. This is what we used in Torah study, but it definitely isn't for those who have been brainwashed into believing that the scriptures are inerrant.

BTW, an excellent Christian source is "Jerome's Bible Commentary" (Catholic), although I don't know if it's still being published. Also, there's the Anchor Bible series you might want to check out.

 

[Thumper]

Wrong. Our basis for trusting in the Bible rests on a solid foundation! Archaeology (one of the sciences, btw) is constantly finding new and tangible evidence -- evidence, not conjecture -- that strengthens our faith....

Finding a city, building, or person existed in history and is mentioned in a book doesn't prove the book is necessarily documenting a true history as opposed to a narrative fiction. I've been to King's Cross Station in London, but that doesn't prove Harry Potter is real.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Finding a city, building, or person existed in history and is mentioned in a book doesn't prove the book is necessarily documenting a true history as opposed to a narrative fiction. I've been to King's Cross Station in London, but that doesn't prove Harry Potter is real.

Yes, certainly. But the Bible contains much more than that, evidences not easily dismissed.

The Bible's Internal Proofs of Authenticity

It's the most misinterpreted and misunderstood book in the world (Luke 10:21), even by many of its supposed supporters. -- Matthew 7:21-23; 2 Timothy 3:5.

These are facts revealed within its own pages.

 

[Thumper]

Yes, certainly. But the Bible contains much more than that, evidences not easily dismissed.

The Bible's Internal Proofs of Authenticity

It's the most misinterpreted and misunderstood book in the world (Luke 10:21), even by many of its supposed supporters. -- Matthew 7:21-23; 2 Timothy 3:5.

These are facts revealed within its own pages.

Using your book of myths to prove your book of myths is nonsensical.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No, there are quite a few scientists, including many biologists, who state that CD doesn't fit the evidence.

And although the majority say it does, their disagreement on how it progressed is epic. Their arguments among themselves are comical to watch at times, each group presenting their own hypotheses, while others rail against it.

What a house of cards! It's collapse will be great.

The theory of evolution will never be overturned:

"Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory)... Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence." Evolution Resources from the National Academies

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Wrong. Our basis for trusting in the Bible rests on a solid foundation! Archaeology (one of the sciences, btw) is constantly finding new and tangible evidence -- evidence, not conjecture -- that strengthens our faith.

Not the archeology I've read. It pretty much demolishes Exodus. There was no Egyptian captivity, no wandering in the desert for 40 years, no invasion of Canaan or conquering of Jericho.

Deeje was referring to justice within the animal kingdom -- or lack of it, I should say. (Did you purposely miss the point?)

What point?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

People are always wanting to discredit theBible; just more proof that society is under Satan's control.....as prophesied. Everything originating from God is under attack. Even marriage.)

Don't forget the Iliad and Odyssee. People not wanting to believe that also proves the existence and control of Satan.

And remember: lack of evidence is not proof.

Yet that is the creationist's favorite argument: You can't prove evolution, you can't reproduce such-and-such. you've never observed yadda.

 

[Deeje]

Are you aware that the concept of theistic causation does not even rank as a scientific hypothesis? In order to be classified as such, there must be some objective evidence to suggest that it's conceivable.

Metis, you act as if God must fit within the parameters set for him by man.
Look at your question...."Are you aware that the concept of theistic causation does not even rank as a scientific hypothesis?
Do you see how much this assumes? Its as though God has to squeeze into a man made scientific hypothesis or he must be a figment of human imagination. Poor deluded, pathetic believers. But what if the Creator is not definable by man at all? Does that automatically mean that he doesn't exist?

For example, if I say the world is coming to an end tomorrow, you ask me why I believe as such and I respond that I just think it is, this is not a hypothesis from the scientific perspective-- it's just a guess, and that's all. Proponents of theistic causation can provide no objectively-derived evidence that any deity created the universe 17+ billion years ago. However, this does not mean nor imply that there could not have been a creator-god(s).

I see you hedging your bets a bit....does that mean that you will believe in the Creator when or if you see proof of him for yourself? Using the example of Noah, (which Jesus does to picture the end of another world of wicked humanity, Matthew 24:37-39) then all of the people of that time believed that Noah was a silly old man, building a huge structure for no known reason. He appeared to them as a deranged lunatic. Who would listen to such nonsense? Life continued on as usual. God didn't force anyone to listen, nor did he give those people any proof of what was impending before Noah and his family entered the ark and God closed the door. Any one who might have believed Noah had to take what he said on faith. No one did.

The world of that time did not need God, nor did they want him to tell them what to do......today it is much the same. Even those who profess a Christian belief see no need to obey Christ's teachings if it doesn't suit them. They can pretty much justify their way out of anything. Look at the SSM issue. Look at divorce. Look at the churches' friendship with the world. Look at the adoption of pagan celebrations that have no connection with the true God at all. How much disobedience is there?

Right from the start in Eden, all God ever asked of man was his obedience....its all he is asking now.

BTW, later today I'm thinking of starting a thread that deals with John 3:16 probably entitled "Joe & Jane Schmoe and 'Salvation'". I'll mention your name with a @ so that you can hopefully join in the discussion.

Done.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Right from the start in Eden, all God ever asked of man was his obedience....its all he is asking now.

Isn't that the purpose of this religion? Priests tell you what a god told them to relay to you, and the message was to submit - man to a god,subject to a king, slave to a master, and wife to husband. Bend a knee. Worship.

I can't buy into that. My role is to be an autonomous free citizen, not a subject, and a co-partner with my wife, not her master.

 

[Deeje]

Isn't that the purpose of this religion?

What religion?

Priests tell you what a god told them to relay to you, and the message was to submit - man to a god,subject to a king, slave to a master, and wife to husband. Bend a knee. Worship.
I can't buy into that.

I wasn't aware that there was ever a requirement to "buy" into anything. Submission to another person in a position of authority is relative and usually entered into voluntarily. We are all subject to someone....unless you have never worked for a boss or are free to break the law???

Do you understand why there is rank and order in any organisation of human beings? No matter who you are, or what position you hold, you are accountable to someone for how you perform your duties. Even if you are a CEO, the owner of a company or even a shareholder.....if someone fails to do their job, you are affected.

If you think that worship is all about submission, then you are only half right.....no wonder you have issues.

My role is to be an autonomous free citizen, not a subject, and a co-partner with my wife, not her master.

I wonder if you would be able to say that if you had been born in a country like Nth Korea or the Sudan? Your role and your attitude, I imagine would be very different.

The Bible recommends a headship arrangement. For the same reason as a motor vehicle has only one set of controls.
If the arrangement is based on love and respect, there is no master slave relationship. Headship was never intended to be dictatorship.

You seem to have a very twisted view of Christianity......and if that is based on the conduct and teachings of the churches, then little wonder you have such misgivings.

 

[Derek500]

On the contrary, I am not confused at all. What is "nature"? Perhaps you can give me a definition. Then give me a definition of "science" and tell me how one connects to the other. Then tell me how a Christian fits God into the big picture presented by the Bible. Either Genesis is wrong...or evolution is. They can't both be right.

Sure. In the middle of a clear day the colour of the sky seems to be blue for virtually everyone in the world. That's nature.

Science explains why the sky appears to be blue. You know properties of light, wave length, scattering of light by molecules, atmosphere and all that.

Nature is what is observed (the word observe does not only mean "to directly see"). The natural sciences try to explain the observations.

 

[Derek500]

And, you know, I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is that evolutionary science is taught as if it were 100% proven.

Actually, one of the things that have been 100% proven is the fact that the first forms of life, as we know life, were complex forms of organic molecules and , after that, prokaryotes. That's been shown.Thousands of times. That should be taught. 100%, all the time.

What should not be taught is that modern life was poofed into existence. That's an untruth.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What religion?

Christianity.

I wasn't aware that there was ever a requirement to "buy" into anything. Submission to another person in a position of authority is relative and usually entered into voluntarily. We are all subject to someone....unless you have never worked for a boss or are free to break the law???

Biblical submission is commanded

Do you understand why there is rank and order in any organisation of human beings? No matter who you are, or what position you hold, you are accountable to someone for how you perform your duties. Even if you are a CEO, the owner of a company or even a shareholder.....if someone fails to do their job, you are affected.

I don't see the relevance. Agreeing to follow somebody else's rules for a paycheck until you're ready to move on is unrelated to being commanded to submit to a god, king, or slave owner.

If you think that worship is all about submission, then you are only half right.....no wonder you have issues.

What issues would those be? Preferring dignity over worship? Rights over commandments? Citizenship over being a subject?

I wonder if you would be able to say that if you had been born in a country like Nth Korea or the Sudan? Your role and your attitude, I imagine would be very different.

Probably.

The Bible recommends a headship arrangement. For the same reason as a motor vehicle has only one set of controls. If the arrangement is based on love and respect, there is no master slave relationship. Headship was never intended to be dictatorship.

I've read the Bible. There is a master-slave arrangement:

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ." - Ephesians 6:5

Sorry. Not for me. Not my values.

 

[gnostic]

Wrong. Our basis for trusting in the Bible rests on a solid foundation! Archaeology (one of the sciences, btw) is constantly finding new and tangible evidence -- evidence, not conjecture -- that strengthens our faith.

In what way archaeology is strengthening faith?

And which cities and civilisations are you talking about, matched archaeological evidences with the Old Testament bible?

ps

Are you an "Old-Earth" creationist or "Young-Earth" creationist?

 

[Jose Fly]

No, there are quite a few scientists, including many biologists, who state that CD doesn't fit the evidence.

About how many?

What a house of cards! It's collapse will be great.

Ah yes, the longest running falsehood in creationism strikes again!

 

[Deeje]

Actually, one of the things that have been 100% proven is the fact that the first forms of life, as we know life, were complex forms of organic molecules and , after that, prokaryotes. That's been shown.Thousands of times. That should be taught. 100%, all the time.

How do you know this? No one was around all those billions of years ago, so whose word do you take on that score.....men with limited knowledge and lots of imagination or the one who actually created all of it?

Faith is required in either case.

I see that you identify as a "Christian", so you obviously try to combine creation with science....so do we. But we don't sell out to evolutionary science as if it must be true and the Bible must be false because it isn't written "scientifically". Are you a theistic evolutionist by any chance?

I see that position as a weak compromise.....one I could never make and still explain the intentions of my Creator and his Christ towards human beings. Did he just start life and leave us? Is the Bible unnecessary when we have science to tell us how it all happened?

I see that you did not address these questions......is there a reason for this? Can you call yourself a Christian and yet deny the teachings of Jesus?

What should not be taught is that modern life was poofed into existence. That's an untruth.

The Bible doesn't say it was....YEC's do. And I am not a YEC. I see creation as a slow and deliberate crafting of the things made, over vast amounts of time. Their design and function does not indicate accidental mutations, but deliberate design and fine tuning until a final model is achieved. Only man is endowed with the Creator's attributes. Creation stops at this point. The Bible is fully compatible with this belief.