Page 450 of 557 FirstFirst ... 350400440446447448449450451452453454460500550 ... LastLast
Results 6,736 to 6,750 of 8341
  1. #6736
    Astonishing Member Soubhagya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    3,375

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Powerboy View Post
    On that one, at the very least, you would need to explain why fossil evidence clearly shows that at the deeper levels, you have more primitive life and, as you go higher/ more recent, the pattern is always towards more complex forms of life showing up in the fossil record. You'd also need to explain away the clear patterns of evolution everywhere. And yes, I've read some of the Creationist stuff back when I was a Creationist by default simply in having grown up being told to not "believe in" evolution and actually reading some of the Creationist stuff and the early Bible, both of which were so ridiculous that they made me think there at least must be something to the Evolution thing enough to look further.
    See my method of getting information is the scriptures. Human beings are imperfect due to four defects i mentioned before. The results and conclusions which we will derive out of it can be incorrect.

    Now i accept God to be free of these defects. And the scriptures are given by God. This one is my assumption or faith. For any field of knowledge to make progress you need some assumptions.

    Next, i don't seek the answers to the physical world from scriptures. My questions are of a metaphysical nature. Life, death, suffering, and its solutions. These are sufficiently explained by the scriptures because their 'aim' is to explain that. Scriptures approach the world differently. Their purpose is not to explain the world in detail.

    And just as there are practical aspects to science, religion also has that. And that works. Exactly as it should. Not only does it tell what to do, but also what results one can expect from doing that. In this respect this is science too. There is theory. There are experiments. Its practical. Even a child can see its results.

    Now in scriptures there are things which are on the face of it ridiculous. Especially with regards to progress of science. My advice would be take what works but don't reject what does not. Its something to be understood later. Just like scientists do with light. Is it a wave? Is it a particle? In some cases it works as a particle. In some as wave. Take what works for you. I do the same thing. I would lie if i say i don't face it. One shall be a 'saragrahi'. Meaning accept the essence or the good.

    You said more things. I had counter arguments for that. But i stopped myself. You are right. I will present an argument and you will present a counter argument and this will go on.

    Thus, i will give only a scientific one. 2% scientists did go against evolution.

    https://www-pewresearch-org.cdn.ampp...arwin-day%252F

    Truth is not determined by majority. What i am presenting is 'reasonable doubt'. If you had seen '12 Angry Men', it had this. You can't hang someone when you have reasonable doubt.

    The reason i am arguing is because people come and say God does not exist in here. What do you expect? In fact, it looks like the person wants to pick up a fight by posting in the Bible thread. The other side was not free from problems either. Why ask for a challenge?
    Last edited by Soubhagya; 05-21-2018 at 03:42 PM.

  2. #6737
    Extraordinary Member Kirby101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    9,190

    Default

    Thought better of it.
    Last edited by Kirby101; 05-21-2018 at 05:18 PM.
    There came a time when the Old Gods died! The Brave died with the Cunning! The Noble perished locked in battle with unleashed Evil! It was the last day for them! An ancient era was passing in fiery holocaust!

  3. #6738
    What fresh hell is this? ChadH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Incertisque loci...incerto tempore
    Posts
    2,070

    Default

    For my own part, I simply wanted to point out some fundamental misunderstandings about the scientific method and the law of COE. When challenged, I thought it necessary to clarify my statements, though I never seemed to be fully understood.
    The Cover Contest Weekly Winners Thread So much winning!!

    "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis
    "Being politically incorrect shouldn't be a matter of pride. It's the last gasp of the wrong side of history." - Unknown
    "By all means, compare these s**t-heads to Nazis." - Mike Godwin referring to the protesters in Charlottesville.

  4. #6739
    Astonishing Member Powerboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,789

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Soubhagya View Post
    See my method of getting information is the scriptures. Human beings are imperfect due to four defects i mentioned before. The results and conclusions which we will derive out of it can be incorrect.

    Now i accept God to be free of these defects. And the scriptures are given by God. This one is my assumption or faith. For any field of knowledge to make progress you need some assumptions.

    Next, i don't seek the answers to the physical world from scriptures. My questions are of a metaphysical nature. Life, death, suffering, and its solutions. These are sufficiently explained by the scriptures because their 'aim' is to explain that. Scriptures approach the world differently. Their purpose is not to explain the world in detail.

    And just as there are practical aspects to science, religion also has that. And that works. Exactly as it should. Not only does it tell what to do, but also what results one can expect from doing that. In this respect this is science too. There is theory. There are experiments. Its practical. Even a child can see its results.

    Now in scriptures there are things which are on the face of it ridiculous. Especially with regards to progress of science. My advice would be take what works but don't reject what does not. Its something to be understood later. Just like scientists do with light. Is it a wave? Is it a particle? In some cases it works as a particle. In some as wave. Take what works for you. I do the same thing. I would lie if i say i don't face it. One shall be a 'saragrahi'. Meaning accept the essence or the good.

    You said more things. I had counter arguments for that. But i stopped myself. You are right. I will present an argument and you will present a counter argument and this will go on.

    Thus, i will give only a scientific one. 2% scientists did go against evolution.

    https://www-pewresearch-org.cdn.ampp...arwin-day%252F

    Truth is not determined by majority. What i am presenting is 'reasonable doubt'. If you had seen '12 Angry Men', it had this. You can't hang someone when you have reasonable doubt.

    The reason i am arguing is because people come and say God does not exist in here. What do you expect? In fact, it looks like the person wants to pick up a fight by posting in the Bible thread. The other side was not free from problems either. Why ask for a challenge?
    I stated more than once though that none of these evolution arguments are really arguments for or against God although they are often taken that way. But the evidence for evolution is abundant to put it mildly.

    I know a small percentage of scientists disagree with evolution. I've known a couple of them myself long ago when I was myself a believer. I've talked to them. They believed that evolution and God were either/ or and it was clearly a matter of their faith taking precedence over their science. In reading Creationist stuff, it's clearly a matter of faith taking precedence over evidence. The evidence MUST be wrong because the conclusion is already in. Creationist materials are loaded with inaccuracies.

    But, honestly, that should really have it's own thread rather than being interjected into what amounts to a Bible study thread.
    His name is CAPTAIN MARVEL.

  5. #6740
    Astonishing Member Powerboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,789

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Dying Detective View Post
    But let me ask you why would the fossils found to uphold evolution only have small but no rapid changes to them? And why are there so many fossils of animals that we know exist today like starfish that have been described to have been millions or billions years old yet they were found to be exactly the same as the animals we know today? Your beloved Darwin admits there are no real proofs of transitions. Without evidence that compromises the facts you have been trying to say it but why is it still being kept around? You said that the Flood was derived from myths but there were fossil grave yards found in sediments such as Nebraska where there are places where fossils have been found in places where there are sediments laid down by water.
    But let me ask you why would the fossils found to uphold evolution only have small but no rapid changes to them?

    Because some do and some don't. You think the difference between Austrolopithecus and modern man isn't a huge change?

    And why are there so many fossils of animals that we know exist today like starfish that have been described to have been millions or billions years old yet they were found to be exactly the same as the animals we know today?

    Because of the relative lack of starfish fossils which in no way disproves the abundance of fossils showing an evoutionary change in animals.

    Your beloved Darwin admits there are no real proofs of transitions. Without evidence that compromises the facts you have been trying to say it but why is it still being kept around?

    Darwin was not even the first to see the evidence and propose evolution. There were those before him but he existed in a time when the information couldn't be suppressed anymore. There was a man fifty years earlier or so but it was too soon, in a time when the Church could suppress it. There were others already working toward the same conclusion but he published first. But it would have happened soon anyway because the evidence was there and the world had changed enough that it couldn't be suppressed.

    There were few proofs of transition when Darwin published in 1859. But time didn't stand still. Only two years later, a major transitional form was found and quite a number since then.

    Not sure what your Nebraska thing is about but evidence shows there was no universal flood. There are parts of the planet that, due to geography and other factors, has never had a flood.

    Meanwhile, those pesky fossils with the more primitive at the deeper older layers and the progress to more advanced are still there.
    His name is CAPTAIN MARVEL.

  6. #6741
    Astonishing Member Soubhagya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    3,375

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Powerboy View Post
    I stated more than once though that none of these evolution arguments are really arguments for or against God although they are often taken that way. But the evidence for evolution is abundant to put it mildly.
    They are being used like that. To disprove God.

    God of gaps might be true in the middle ages. But now its not. What i gave were only arguments. To think. Consider. But its not proof in itself. But to help someone reach actual proof. Scriptures. And people who make it work in practice.

    I know a small percentage of scientists disagree with evolution. I've known a couple of them myself long ago when I was myself a believer. I've talked to them. They believed that evolution and God were either/ or and it was clearly a matter of their faith taking precedence over their science. In reading Creationist stuff, it's clearly a matter of faith taking precedence over evidence. The evidence MUST be wrong because the conclusion is already in. Creationist materials are loaded with inaccuracies.
    Then i shall read some creationist materials and check them for these inaccuracies.

    My experience is different. I don't believe in something. Nor do people i meet believers. Religion is practical. On that basis the initial faith becomes stronger.

    But, honestly, that should really have it's own thread rather than being interjected into what amounts to a Bible study thread.
    And this is where problems arise. Not every Bible reader is the same. Some take it as written by people. Others call it of divine origin. As long as this is kept in mind by both kinds of readers i don't think there's a problem. Its a Bible study thread. Both kinds of readers can be present when one understands where people are coming from.
    Last edited by Soubhagya; 05-21-2018 at 10:06 PM.

  7. #6742
    Mighty Member Darkseid Is's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    1,135

    Default

    My mom and I are Christian. I would love to see a UFO or flying saucer or whatever you wanna call it. She is deathly terrified of it and thinks it would ruin her spiritual beliefs. I don't understand this and if I try to talk to her about it she likes to change the subject. Does anyone understand why?

    If there was in fact an Adam could there not be another Adam somewhere out there in the cosmos? If Jesus Christ existed, and I do believe he existed, could there not be a Jesus Christ under a different name on another planet? Dying for the sins of another race we have no knowledge of? Could our "universal" morals truly be universal? I know I probably sound like a comics or sci-fi fan but I'm sure someone has thought about this.

  8. #6743
    Postin' since Aug '05 Dalak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,634

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darkseid Is View Post
    My mom and I are Christian. I would love to see a UFO or flying saucer or whatever you wanna call it. She is deathly terrified of it and thinks it would ruin her spiritual beliefs. I don't understand this and if I try to talk to her about it she likes to change the subject. Does anyone understand why?

    If there was in fact an Adam could there not be another Adam somewhere out there in the cosmos? If Jesus Christ existed, and I do believe he existed, could there not be a Jesus Christ under a different name on another planet? Dying for the sins of another race we have no knowledge of? Could our "universal" morals truly be universal? I know I probably sound like a comics or sci-fi fan but I'm sure someone has thought about this.
    I've done some pondering on this, but I'm sure nowhere near enough. I personally would have no problem with God having multiple worlds which were chosen for life with the basic premise being that 'in his image' meant us all being intelligent beings. Of course whether they would shake any faith would depend on how they'd interpret both ours and theirs. They could see us as brothers from another sun and embrace us as fellow children of God, or they might react negatively and see us as heathens for some difference of doctrine sparking a holy war. The form of life they take would also matter as something drastically different from our own could lead to culture clashes as well regardless of compatible beliefs. Gaseous beings wouldn't like a life form that could ingest them accidentally by breathing, and silicon/rock based life could emit so much heat in order to be flexible enough to move that they'd cause problems in our atmosphere let alone our physical presence.

    I like thinking about several kinds of hypotheticals like alien life, time travel, and how various fictions would interact which is why I wound up on these boards long ago in the before-time.

  9. #6744
    Astonishing Member Soubhagya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    3,375

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darkseid Is View Post
    My mom and I are Christian. I would love to see a UFO or flying saucer or whatever you wanna call it. She is deathly terrified of it and thinks it would ruin her spiritual beliefs. I don't understand this and if I try to talk to her about it she likes to change the subject. Does anyone understand why?

    If there was in fact an Adam could there not be another Adam somewhere out there in the cosmos? If Jesus Christ existed, and I do believe he existed, could there not be a Jesus Christ under a different name on another planet? Dying for the sins of another race we have no knowledge of? Could our "universal" morals truly be universal? I know I probably sound like a comics or sci-fi fan but I'm sure someone has thought about this.
    But if i answer will i be taken as a heathen? My observation and understanding is that scriptures are revealed according to the audience concerned. That revealed scriptures essentially say the same thing but varying in details according to the audience's ability to receive. There is but one God who is being spoken in both Bible and Quran. Bible by choice does not go into details. I base the last statement on this verse.

    I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

    [John 16:12]

    And its not the job of the scriptures to explain the world in detail. But rather tell about its origin, God. Our and the world's relationship with God. And how to act on the basis of this knowledge.

    I can point to other scriptures which go into more details. Interplanetary travel. Where hell is not called hell but rather hellish planets. Multiverse. Relativity of time. But can i do that here without creating discomfort? I can PM you if you want to. Or maybe its for another thread. Philosophy and religion one might be good. I can talk more freely in such places.

  10. #6745
    Astonishing Member dancj's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,781

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Dying Detective View Post
    If I recall my brethren in America were subjected to a kangaroo court as people began to believe more in the theory of evolution and what not.
    What are you referring to here?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Dying Detective View Post
    There is no openness. Science may work that way
    That is the absolute opposite of the truth. Science is completely open to anything which is supported by the evidence. Religion on the other hand tends to be very closed to any theories which contradict its pre-conceived beliefs.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Dying Detective View Post
    but unfortunately that doesn't mean that theories that they came up with such as the Big Bang theory to explain why the universe exist when they cannot even pin point the explosion began makes me question how did they come to this conclusion an explosion has a source so if they cannot identify the source then how can anyone know there was a Bang?
    Because we can see evidence of the the explosion.

  11. #6746
    The Detective Man The Dying Detective's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Look East
    Posts
    4,774

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dancj View Post
    What are you referring to here?


    That is the absolute opposite of the truth. Science is completely open to anything which is supported by the evidence. Religion on the other hand tends to be very closed to any theories which contradict its pre-conceived beliefs.


    Because we can see evidence of the the explosion.
    I am referring to the Scopes Trial. That's not so unlike other religions science is more than able to support Christianity. In the Grand Canyon a place above sea level fossils of more than just land animals were found like nautiloids unless the wasn't covered in water there is no way they could have gotten there. And where is you evidence of the explosion?
    "Excellent!" I cried. "Elementary," said he

  12. #6747
    Astonishing Member dancj's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,781

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Dying Detective View Post
    So let me get this straight because you cannot see God you dismiss Him as nonexistent
    I dismiss him as non-existent because I have never seen a shred of evidence to support the idea. I like a reason (beyond wishful thinking) to believe something.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Dying Detective View Post
    yet you admit that you cannot prove that your belief that God is merely an idea is true. So in other words your belief that God is an idea is not true and therefore completely false since you cannot and have no proof that it the case.
    Are you seriously suggesting that anything which can not be absolutely proven is completely false?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Dying Detective View Post
    And could therefore prove that God is real to be true because there is proof He exist.
    There really is none.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Dying Detective View Post
    As for your teapot idea I would only believe if I actually knew that.
    You would only believe what? That there is or isn't a teapot? Or both?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Dying Detective View Post
    also name those moments in the Bible that are false because it isn't not at all. and the only reason I know God is real because I actually know Him unlike you.
    Claims that the Earth and universe are only about 6,000 years old.

    The great flood.

    Fitting two of every land-based species on the entire planet into one boat.

  13. #6748
    Astonishing Member dancj's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,781

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Dying Detective View Post
    Well number one the orbits of planets they all work the way they do never leaving it, never straying from their intended orbit. Animals obey their natural instincts like a robot would when carrying out it's programming. The law of gravity always works the way it does. The sun stays where it's supposed to stay. That just some I can name at the top of my head.
    The orbit of planets is decaying.

    Animals' instincts are explainable by evolution.

    The sun isn't "supposed" to stay anywhere - and it doesn't. It's moving.

    Gravity, we've already covered.

  14. #6749
    Astonishing Member dancj's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,781

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Dying Detective View Post
    Sure but when you hold fast to theories that are only half true and no further research has been able to prove them then they are of no use.
    Science doesn't old fast to theories, and does do further research, so I'm not sure where you're going with this.

  15. #6750
    Astonishing Member dancj's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,781

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Soubhagya View Post
    Okay, here's a question. Why do giraffes have such long necks?
    They actually have short necks in relation to their legs. Have you ever seen a giraffe eating grass. They have to spread their legs really wide because their necks are too short.

    Quote Originally Posted by Soubhagya View Post
    And that's accepted as the origin of everything. Just see the hypocrisy.
    It's generally accepted as the best current theory. Scientists are open to being proven wrong.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •