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!

Featured Science Babble vs Truth

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by nPeace, Oct 5, 2021.

  1. rational experiences

    rational experiences Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2020
    Messages:
    6,567
    Ratings:
    +342
    Religion:
    spiritualist
    Natural human conscious spiritual mind human theories the sciences.

    Natural first science human observation is all whole presences as first.

    No argument allowed as men designed and use machines to look deeper into form.

    So first theist stands on earth as a human and wants machine.

    You theory science of God. Where is the God machine you identify with?

    The earth's core itself.

    Science knew tunnels had been bored out by the sun removing gods mass earth back to a science zero.

    The difference between a natural zero is mass presence held by zero cold pressures as origins. To a scientists science zero.

    As intent is nuclear sun time reaction. Zero by intention is no mass existing by a conversion intent.

    To the core.

    So I heard my brother's recorded theistic satanisms that always gives him the same answer no matter where he theoried. Whether he places intent in earth....says.....I cannot get over the burn then.

    As a sink hole would go to gods volcanic hell in theory and not the iron core. Machine of God.

    Science placated a space channel from earths machine core was sending out radiation from space within.

    Earth owns no space within. Irradiating space is inner mass converting only. Known as carpenter to him...built tectonic shift advice. Converting earth mass advice.

    God built it he says.

    So inventing sink holes from within was his actual thesis about how the planet would become the machine first as first he owns personally no machine. As his science personally is the machine only beneath and direct to and with planets mass.

    As science practicing is direct from gods dusts to build a machine. So his reactive machine intent is for it to act like the carpenter. Why it was science.

    In reality first theism owns no machine or any reaction. Intent is direct to earth as God first.

    Why satanism is science as intent never allowed God the body or god the natural gas spirit to exist.
     
  2. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    9,648
    Ratings:
    +2,871
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    We demonstrate a lot of things ma'am. Not just the scientists.

    I don't know what country you are from, where you went to school (I assume you did), or what kind of grammar you use, but when I hear or use the expression "based on", it does not mean the same thing as have.

    Furthermore, the quote you selected has nothing to do with what science is based on.
    Sorry, but you might want to make sure you are not grabbing at straws, when you try those.

    I wouldn't either, if I tried those kind of tactics.

    Wow.
    I asked for an example of proof, so as to understand what you meant by "we don't have proof". and I asked you to give me an example of proof say for example, in evolution theory, so that I could get you clearly.

    Since you said we simply do not have proof of God and the supernatural.

    I don't understand how you connect breeding animals to proof of evolution?
    So that doesn't help, at all.
    However, iif you are uninterested, in the discussion, I have to wonder why you are here.
    I have not seen breeding given as proof of evolution anywhere where claimed evidence is presented.

    Breeding allows for variety. It's not proof of evolution, but it proves reproduction, or procreation.

    No worries. Just don't respond.

    So you are complaining about having to repeat, and you repeatedly ask me the same thing I explained more than once.
    I think there is a negative trait at the root of these ... situations.

    No worries. I get the message.

    Interesting gravity seem to be a mantra.
    The fact that God is real, is backed by loads of evidence, which you guys ignore, wave your hand at, and back out, where you can't move forward.

    The same way you do so, and want others to believe the stories you believe, others can do the same. However, we don't resort to that. We try reasoning with you.

    Guesses would be interesting to discuss. However...
    If you are in a hurry to leave, don't let me keep you.

    You mean like the ones on this page.
    In science, a theory is superseded when a scientific consensus once widely accepted it, but current science considers it inadequate, incomplete, or debunked (i.e., wrong).

    Seems to ,me, that demonstrates, that "making sure that it is actually true" can often not be done with certainty.
    Similar to the way religion functions... or anything else, for that matter.

    What do you mean gravity might change? Oops sorry. No more questions.
    Giving something a different name will not change what can be observed. Similar to the light spectrum. If it were discovered that light is made up of trillions more waves of color, it would only present us with more knowledge we can use, but does not change what we observe.

    Our understanding of things is what changes. Our assumptions, speculations and ideas etc., change.
     
  3. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    9,648
    Ratings:
    +2,871
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    @Yazata I appreciate your contributions. I hope others give a response to your posts, as I would be interested to hear those thoughts discussed. :)
     
  4. rational experiences

    rational experiences Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2020
    Messages:
    6,567
    Ratings:
    +342
    Religion:
    spiritualist
    Men in science said God exists for various reasons.

    Men named O earth one God in science.
    Men in science said gods earth heavens their selves.

    God exists.

    Other scientists use names as earth or gases. Same intentional choice use of words chosen only by humans.

    Groups argue by using intentions of words.

    Man said image of man...not his owned human self is held in gods gas heavens clouds.

    Proof a man is of God by heavenly image.

    Same as animals by image.

    Versus cosmic satanic hell theists.

    Only gods gases own man's image.

    Reasoning...as UFO and alien as evil images are also seen in clouds.

    So water evaporated our human life spirit abducted is used in cloud new formation.

    Nuclear sciences also uses water cooling. Also used it in pyramid science as they had underground water channels and pyramid pumps to water cool the pyramids facure.

    How and why evil can also produce image.

    Yet not of gods gases by irradiation causes.

    As the God teaching said gods angels were first images in clouds like humans as evidence.

    Hence the status to teach why man's image was produced by God spirits was a teaching to state in the same causes clouds evil images also are seen.

    It was just a teaching against satanic science.

    Hearing a man of science machine designer thinker controlling what the machine caused is new recording speaking back to you was never a God.

    Man gave himself voiced science advice feedback.

    Our spirit teaching said humans had come direct out of the eternal pre owned spirit. Why our consciousness is first spiritual only.

    The document hence quotes no man is God as the document owned a huge varied subject of discussions.

    God changed produces evil spirits only as science proven.
     
  5. Nimos

    Nimos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2014
    Messages:
    3,330
    Ratings:
    +2,127
    No, that is why I tried to explain to you why that is proof of evolution.

    Maybe this video will help:


    What evidence? Can you provide just 3 of these?

    That is correct. Which is because we expand our knowledge and Newton did have problems explaining certain things, which Einstein picked up on and corrected. Science is an on going process and you are correct that sometimes it is wrong, which is why it gets corrected once someone figures out that something doesn't hold up. Which only prove that science works exactly as intended, because it allows others to find flaws in it and correct it.

    Simply that we have no clue whether the universe changes gravity every 14.7 billion years or so for whatever reason, so it suddenly weren't as strong or whatever and that might be tomorrow. It is highly unlikely, because we have no evidence that such thing could happen, but we can't know it for certain. Therefore its no something we concern ourselves with. But merely an example of why we can't say that we know anything with absolutely certainty.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  6. rational experiences

    rational experiences Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2020
    Messages:
    6,567
    Ratings:
    +342
    Religion:
    spiritualist
    Is a human 14.7 billion years old?

    As science said bang blast instant light ..light now light is life your answer to a humans presence instant he says consciously says no you are wrong theist scientist.
     
  7. ratiocinator

    ratiocinator Lightly seared on the reality grill.
    It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    4,830
    Ratings:
    +3,624
    Religion:
    none
    How about giving us some then (not just a list of one-liners)? I've heard this claim so many times and yet I've never seen any actual, objective evidence. If you had even 0.1% of the evidence we have for evolution, giving a few examples should be easy.
    This is a good thing. It is perfectly rational to change one's mind if there is new evidence (if you can actually produce some real evidence for god, I'll have to change my mind), however, most of what is listed on that page were never scientific theories in the modern sense of the term. There are also some theories that have been so well tested that, although they may be refined, modified, or replaced with something more accurate, their main results are all but certain. These include Newtonian gravity (which has been replaced but is still applicable in most situations), the earth being roughly spherical, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of evolution.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  8. Nimos

    Nimos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2014
    Messages:
    3,330
    Ratings:
    +2,127
    No not humans, the universe and apparently its more like 13.8 from what I can see.
     
  9. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    9,648
    Ratings:
    +2,871
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    I watched half your video - 1 minute 22 second, and what's going through my head is, What does this have to do with "breeding proving evolution"? Breeding does not prove evolution.
    Oh my head. :facepalm:
    You know what. I think you are repeating something you heard, and do not understand. Nor can you explain it... in your own words.
    Selection can happen when breeding takes place. That has nothing to do with proving evolution.
    I can argue that breeding proves that God made male and female to reproduce then.
    :facepalm:

    Why you even gave me a video, on natural vs artificial selection, beats me.
    The claim is that evolution occurs by national selection.
    Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity. See Misconceptions about natural selection
    So if the living creature did not have genetic information with variations, and if those creature were unable to reproduce, there would be no opportunity to see any result of change.

    Phenotypic variation
    Phenotypic variation (due to underlying heritable genetic variation) is a fundamental prerequisite for evolution by natural selection. It is the living organism as a whole that contributes (or not) to the next generation, so natural selection affects the genetic structure of a population indirectly via the contribution of phenotypes. Without phenotypic variation, there would be no evolution by natural selection.

    Breeding or sex can introduce new gene combinations into a population and is an important source of genetic variation.
    Natural selection requires variation.
    It is through this God-given gift of reproduction - something scientists cannot explain why it happened - that we get new genetic variations or new combinations of genes.
    Hence we give credit to the creator of DNA, RNA, and all the processes responsible for life to survive, thrive, and become many varieties. Genesis 1:11, 12, 20-28 ; Psalm 139:13-16

    What I find interesting, is that top scientists do not consider what you are claiming, as proof of evolution.
    Stephen Jay Gould for example "appeared to be presenting his ideas as a revolutionary way of understanding evolution, and argued for the importance of mechanisms other than natural selection, mechanisms which he believed had been ignored by many professional evolutionists."
    Dawkins argues that natural selection is best understood as competition among genes (or replicators), while Gould advocated multi-level selection, which includes selection amongst genes, nucleic acid sequences, cell lineages, organisms, demes, species, and clades.

    https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/72/2/646.full.pdf
    ...modern evolutionists have forcefully asserted that the process of natural selection is responsible for both microevolution, or evolution within species, and evolution above the species level, which is also known as macroevolution or transpecific evolution (1). It will be shown In the following discussion that the presence of a largely random process (speciation) between the two levels of evolution decouples them, and that large-scale evolution is guided not by natural selection, but by a separate, though analogous, process.
    We now have a wealth of evidence suggesting that the origin and initial diversification of most invertebrate phyla occurred during only a few tens of millions of years (10). The gradualistic model cannot account for such rapid change. Rapid speciation, on the other hand, can easily account for the required rate of diversification.

    The network of life: genome beginnings and evolution
    Just as not everything in evolution can be explained by natural selection (Gould's process pluralism), similarly not everything in phylogeny boils down to trees (Doolittle's pattern pluralism). The author proposes, as a general formulation, that ‘genetic mechanisms (broadly construed) and population and ecological process (broadly construed) that we already for the most part understand, operating over enormous time, are responsible for the diversity of life we see around us, and for the adaptedness of living things’. We no longer have a universal hierarchical classification or a unitary, bifurcating tree of life, but our toolkit still contains powerful methodologies (genetics, population biology, ecological theory) to explain the history of life and the diversity of the natural world.

    “Because if natural selection, as proposed by Darwin, is the main mechanism of evolution – there may be other things, but it does look as though that’s the case – then we’ve stopped natural selection.
    Saying we are now able to rear up to 99 per cent of our babies, he added people were no longer subject to Darwinian theories natural selection.

    You are serious? :laughing:
    I'm not convinced. I started with one, and what did you do?
    Searching... searching... Not one word on it. Lips zipped tight.
    Now you are asking me to repeat something I already posted. Why? Seriously?
    I repeated it with a bit more, and I didn't hear you. Perhaps you didn't read it. Here it is, again. if you didn't.

    Getting back to this matter of faith, so that I know I have made it triply clear.
    In Luke 8:43-48
    43 Now there was a woman who had a flow of blood for 12 years, and she had not been able to get a cure from anyone. 44 She approached from behind and touched the fringe of his outer garment, and immediately her flow of blood stopped. 45 So Jesus said: “Who touched me?” When they were all denying it, Peter said: “Instructor, the crowds are hemming you in and pressing against you.” 46 But Jesus said: “Someone touched me, for I know that power went out of me.” 47 Seeing that she had not escaped notice, the woman came trembling and fell down before him and declared before all the people why she touched him and how she was healed immediately. 48 But he said to her: “Daughter, your faith has made you well. Go in peace.”
    This woman had faith - real faith. She was certain she would be healed. There was not one ounce of uncertainty. There was no doubt. She was sure, because of the evidence she had seen and gathered.
    We know this from the corroborating witness of Matthew and Mark.
    Matthew says, she "approached from behind and touched the fringe of his outer garment, for she kept saying to herself: “If I only touch his outer garment, I will get well.” Matthew 9:20-22
    Mark says, "When she heard the reports about Jesus, she came up behind him in the crowd and touched his outer garment, for she kept saying: “If I touch just his outer garments, I will get well.” Mark 5:25-29

    Did this woman have proof? Depends on what you mean by proof, and you have not till now made that clear with any explanation. So until you are able to...
    The woman had evidence . Proof, according to one definition, is "evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement."
    So if that's what you mean by proof, yes, the woman had proof, and it was further proven, by her experience.

    I used this example, since I was reading this account this morning, but there are many more that can explain in the same way.
    Remember that faith, as described in the Bibe, does not allow for doubt. (James 1:6-8)
    You also must remember that you cannot change what is in the Bible to suite what you believe, and then tell those who believe the Bible, that they must accept and live by what you believe.
    That's madness.

    Even Darwin acknowledged that scientists have faith in their principles.
    "I am bound to confess, that, with all my faith in this principle, I should never have anticipated that natural selection could have been efficient in so high a degree" - On the Origin of Species p. 219
    I think you just want to argue against anything you don't want to hear, because you deem it a threat to your arguments against religion.
     
  10. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,330
    Ratings:
    +6,501
    Again @nPeace for someone who said they don't argue against evolution, you sure do spend a lot of time.....arguing against evolution. :rolleyes:
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
  11. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,330
    Ratings:
    +6,501
    FYI @Nimos , a couple of years ago I spent a few weeks trying to explain the basics of selection and evolution to nPeace. Given the above, it's quite obvious it was a total waste of time and he didn't absorb a single thing (while he repeatedly accused me of being "serpent like").

    Just a warning in case you're thinking of tilting at this particular windmill. ;)
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  12. Nimos

    Nimos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2014
    Messages:
    3,330
    Ratings:
    +2,127
    I don't think you got this correct.


    Listen to just the first minute of this one:


    No I didn't read it, but I assume it is these?

    1. The Bible is accurate about history.
    The Bible book of Joshua, was written centuries before our modern time.
    It reported details about the city of Jericho.
    Details which could only be known if that information was available at the time of writing.

    Archaeological discoveries confirm that the city of Jericho was not destroyed after a long seige, but quickly, and based on the evidence they conclude that the walls fell down, and the city was burned.

    Tthe evidence does not contradict the Biblical account, but supports it. Giving evidence of the reliability of the recorded account.
    This is not a one off situation, but has occured numerous times.


    Lets say this is true, Ill grant you that. How is that evidence for God?

    The Bible is accurate about science.
    The writer of the Bible book of Job, was writen centuries before modern discoveries regarding knowledge of our solar system.
    Job 26:7 states a fact that could not be known by man, unless 2 Timothy 3:16 were true.

    Only recently, has the fact the earth is not supported by anything been discovered and confirmed - contrary to what was believed previously by many.

    This is again, just one of many occurances.
    There is by far, a lot more evidence, but this is just the beginning. ;)
    There is evidence we have a reliable souce of truth, and knowledge.


    Lets say that Job is correct, do we just ignore Genesis where pretty much everything is scientifically wrong? And even if they got it right in Job and we ignore Genesis, how do you know that God told them and it weren't just a guess?

    Yes, and we also know that they uses each other as sources. So its not remarkable that you will find similar stories in them.

    Most modern scholars agree that the main sources used for Luke were (a) the Gospel of Mark, (b) a hypothetical sayings collection called the Q source, and (c) material found in no other gospels, often referred to as the L (for Luke) source.
    ---
    The Gospel of Matthew, like the others in the New Testament, evidently is based on sources that were in existence for some time. The two sources on which most of the material is based are Mark and the Logia. The latter is sometimes called "The Sayings of Jesus" and is often referred to as the Q source.
    ---
    A four-document hypothesis or four-source hypothesis is an explanation for the relationship between the three Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. It posits that there were at least four sources to the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke: the Gospel of Mark and three lost sources (Q, M, and L).


    I have no clue, because there is no way for me to verify that this women even existed in the first place. I don't believe that Jesus walked on water either, despite the bible saying that he did. I would be surprised if the bible claimed that he didn't do it :), I don't find the bible an especially good way to gather evidence for God.

    I have no problem with that.


     
  13. Nimos

    Nimos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2014
    Messages:
    3,330
    Ratings:
    +2,127
    I have my suspicions as well :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,330
    Ratings:
    +6,501
    Well, it's not like I'm all perfect either. I was warned before I started up with @nPeace too, and I went ahead anyways.

    I will say it was quite the experience (I've never been called "serpent-like" before) and it did reveal a few things that I didn't expect. But in terms of making any sort of progress in educating him about science, it was a total failure (as this thread shows).
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    9,648
    Ratings:
    +2,871
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    This is what I find common with you. Instead of sticking to the point, you detract to other unimportant things.
    The point is, breeding does not prove evolution, and none of the persons named declares that.
    Why are you giving me videos to watch, that are irrelevant to what is being discussed?

    Let's say some of science is correct. do we just ignore where science has gotten practically everything wrong.
    Even if they got it right in some areas, and we ignore where they got it wrong, how do we know what they get are not guesses?
    Do you say we look at the methods, or the results?
    Do we look at other evidence? Yes. I think looking at all the evidence is important. Not picking at what we want, in order to dismiss what we don't want.
    However, it's clear form this and previous conversations with you, that you are not interested in the former.

    The fact is, since Job got it right, as well as other persons - like Joshua, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Jesus, Paul, Peter, etc. That's quite a lot of accurate guesses the skeptic appeals to... which is not surprising, considering that they accept a series of flutes to account for their belief that life has no purpose, but is the product of unguided processes leading to their doctrine on evolution.

    When one asks for evidence, and they are willing to dismiss that evidence, simply by claiming that whatever was shown were lucky guesses, that person has demonstrated that no amount of evidence will change their closed minded view.
    I suppose the men who wrote the Bible over a period of about 1500 years, all guessed what the others had in mind. Lol.

    Again, you have shifted from the point. i was explaining faith. Whether you believe the woman existed or not, is besides the point.

    I would remind @Jose Fly of Rule #3
    2) Defamation, slander, or misrepresentation of a member's beliefs/arguments, or that of a particular group, culture, or religion. This includes altering the words of another member to change their meaning when using the quote feature.

    3) Antagonism, bullying, or harassment - including but not limited to personal attacks, slander, and misrepresentation - of a member across multiple content areas of the forums. Repeatedly targeting or harassing members of particular groups will also be considered bullying.


    Why are you here? I have not reported you, because I want to give you another opportunity. However, you have been warned.
     
  16. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,330
    Ratings:
    +6,501
    So do you feel no one can criticize your posts here?

    I'm here in this thread for the same reason everyone else is.....to respond to your posts.

    Now, at the risk of banging my head against a well-worn brick wall, I'll repeat yet again....the "proof" of evolution is that we see it happen, all the time, right before our eyes. We both fight against it (antibiotic resistance) and exploit it (domestication).

    It's not all that difficult. You may as well be demanding "proof" of erosion.
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Like Like x 2
  17. Nimos

    Nimos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2014
    Messages:
    3,330
    Ratings:
    +2,127
    Its so weird, you started asking for proof of evolution, I gave you some, which you then deny and quote a scientist which you believe support this view. I link you some videos where this very person talk about natural selection and artificial selection as being proof of evolution and you then say that it is irrelevant. Then why did you ask for it in the first place, that is slightly confusing you must admit? but anyway just ignore it then...

    We don't ignore science when it is wrong, we correct it. As I said it is a progress, Darwin didn't get everything correct the first time, that doesn't mean that we throw the whole theory of evolution out the window, others have done work on it as well, they figure out new things and answered or corrected some of the stuff he got wrong, because he didn't knew it at the time or didn't have the equipment to figure it out etc. That is how science works.


    Assume you mean evidence, when you say former?

    Obviously we are interested in evidence as they can lead to a proof, but in some cases we simply don't have enough evidence or they are not clear enough for us to simply conclude something from them. For instance, we have the bible that talks about Jesus, yes it is evidence for a person named Jesus, but they are not evidence for him actually existing or that he did the things that the bible claim he did. Maybe he did walk on water, but the bible simply stating this, just isn't very convincing evidence for it, because its the book that makes the claim to begin with.

    It would be the same if it was a scientific book where a scientist makes a claim and as evidence he reference his own book. No one would consider that good evidence.

    That is why something like the battle of Jericho is interesting, if there are archaeologic evidence and the dates etc. fits (haven't looked that much into it) then that at least give the bible some validity in regards to that event. Or if we could find the Ark or evidence of a world wide flood etc. Because that would support what the bible is claiming.

    But there is still a very long way from that to proof of God, the Ark or a world wide flood would be very good in my opinion.

    Im not saying that all of them were lucky guesses, we know some of the texts are written after the events, which these are exactly, you have to go into a deeper examination of, because there is lots of texts and I can't remember them, and in some cases they suspect that some verses within the texts were added later as well etc. My point is that all these things has to be taken into account, and im not a biblical scholar by any means, but there is a lot of discussions going on about these things by those that are.

    And listening to them and their arguments simply to understand the structure of the bible and where all these texts, history, time period etc. are connected. It simply ain't as easy as to just read the bible assuming that it is all written as one single book as we see it today. There are lots of contradictions in it, even between the gospels, which is also something these people study and try to figure out how or why that is the case. The people im talking about are educators, scholars or whatever you want to call them, which career it is to study the bible, some might be believers and some might not, but they study the historical evidence of the bible from a scientific point of view rather than a religious point of view.

    It is relevant whether she existed or not, when you ask me whether or not she had proof, depending on what I mean by it and that I haven't explained it.

    Did this woman have proof? Depends on what you mean by proof, and you have not till now made that clear with any explanation. So until you are able to...
    The woman had evidence . Proof, according to one definition, is "evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement."
    So if that's what you mean by proof, yes, the woman had proof, and it was further proven, by her experience.


    And you seem to think that she had proof, I again have no clue, because I don't even know if she existed in the first place, so I can't see how you can reach that conclusion? So it is relevant given that I don't agree with you on this. And the faith you refer to in Luke is no different from what I have already asked you about, it just faith in Jesus, no different than you could have in any other thing.

    What is point of referring to Rule #3? I haven't bullied, harassed you anymore than you have done to me, I just choose to ignore these things.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    9,648
    Ratings:
    +2,871
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Your last comment shows what I have told you before. You just demonstrated it. I was speaking to Jose Fly. So I have to ask again, how do you read that you don't realize that?
    I'll get back to this post tomorrow.
    Have a good night.
     
  19. Nimos

    Nimos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2014
    Messages:
    3,330
    Ratings:
    +2,127
    Sure np.
     
  20. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    18,070
    Ratings:
    +5,464
    Religion:
    Pi π
    I agreed with both, what I highlighted in red and what I have enlarged.

    Scientific theories can be corrected, modified and updated, and if necessary replaced with alternative explanations. But any changes to theories must be tested, and the evidence must backed these changed, before the corrected/modified theories be accepted.

    In the case of Darwin’s original Natural Selection, it has been by biologists afterward in the following century (20th century)

    Darwin’s weaknesses in his theory on Natural Selection evolution, was his explanation in genetics.

    He did attempt to explain genetics (known as pangenesis), but needed improvements in the area of mechanism of heredity. Likewise, other biologists before Darwin have unsuccessfully tried to formulate genetic hypotheses.

    Charles Darwin (1809 - 1882) was contemporary to Gregor Mendel (1822 - 1884), a Silesian biologist and Augustine friar, who developed experiments on peas, researching on heredity mechanism - Mendelian Inheritance - during 1850s and early 1860s, and wrote paper titled Versuche über Pflanzenhybriden (Experiments on Plant Hybridization, 1865, written in German). But Mendel’s work went largely unnoticed outside Silesia-Moravia in Bohemia (Czech Republic), and by the time he was appointed bishop of St Thomas Abbey, his work was largely forgotten, because no one in his lifetime understood Mendel’s groundbreaking work.

    It wasn’t until 1900, that his work was independently rediscovered and understood by German Carl Correns (1864 - 1933) and Dutch Hugo de Vries (1848 -1935). Not long afterward, Mendel was recognized as father of modern genetics.

    From the 1930s to 50s, Natural Selection and Mendelian Genetics were combined where biologists developed the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.

    The point is, like you said, existing theories can be corrected and updated when new evidence and new information are discovered, hence science allowed for progress.

    Unfortunately, creationists refused to learn science, refused to recognise that sciences aren’t fixed dogma, like Christian religion with their bible. The Bible isn’t science, and isn’t even reliable historical sources, and yet some Christians, particularly creationists cannot see it.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
Loading...