Punisher

Massapequa, NY

#391 Dec 27, 2012
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I don't normally use the term 'supernaturalist', but used it mainly because it was used in one of Roland's posts.
2. I don't have any personal desire to relegate the word 'supernaturalist' to believers (as I don't normally use the word).
But as far as maintaining that God has specified that the Bible is 100% of God/God inspired, we 'are' allowed to use logic. Allowed to 'think'. One question to ask is, does what happened to the Apostle Peter, when told he recieved divine revelation from God, happen today among what we term "Christians"? If so, this means an 'absolute' divine revelation from God. If one believes that this happened to them, is there any reason to suggest that maybe the Bible is not the entire Word of God? If what happened to Peter and the apostles 'was' accurate, then can we trust the rest of what is stated in the Bible? Would verses like the one I mentioned, and John 3:16 be the only accurate portions? Or, if the majority is accurate, is it possible that maybe one of the books of the prophets, or one of the epistles shouldn't be there? That maybe one day we will find out that every book was inspired by God, except that 'one' somewhere in the OT that just snuck in there, but shouldn't be there, but God allowed it?
These are valid questions, but in my opinion, there's no reason to suggest that the Bible in it's 'entirety' is not, or has portions not inspired by God.
And that's my view of Creationism. There's no reason for me to suggest, as theistic evolutionists do,(at the risk of being a heretic) that God used evolution in our creation.
Its always been my POV that since Jesus NEVER mentions a Bible, anything similar to such a thing, as HIS one and ONLY Book - that the Bible is nothing but a Book compiled by men to only help them in a Church-like organization to teach a right line of story. The book was compiled for that purpose - to define the story line.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#392 Dec 27, 2012
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
What I think many scientists are 'rejecting' is the conclusions drawn by creation 'scientists'. As an example, there are fully qualified scientists who make 'scientific' cases for the Genesis
“Advocates of the ideas collectively known as “creationism” and, recently,“intelligent design creationism” hold a wide variety of views. Most broadly, a “creationist” is someone who rejects natural scientific explanations of the known universe in favor of special creation by a supernatural entity.…No scientific evidence supports these viewpoints.On the contrary…several independent lines of evidence indicate that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and that the universe is about 14 billion years old. Rejecting the evidence for these age estimates would mean rejecting not just biological evolution but also fundamental discoveries of modern physics, chemistry, astrophysics, and geology.”- 2010 U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
Douglas Furr

Irving, TX

#393 Dec 27, 2012
Why do Christians cry at funerals?

“so tell me......”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#394 Dec 28, 2012
Douglas Furr wrote:
Why do Christians cry at funerals?
It's the separation one cries for.Even If the deceased is a fellow Christian you know that it will likely be a long time before you meet them again and being separated from those you love for whatever reason can cause emotional distress.

“Third Eye”

Since: Nov 10

You can't get there from here.

#395 Dec 28, 2012
Douglas Furr wrote:
Why do Christians cry at funerals?
Why does anyone?
Punisher

Massapequa Park, NY

#396 Dec 29, 2012
Douglas Furr wrote:
Why do Christians cry at funerals?
Uh, oh...you mean my laughing is inappropriate?
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#397 Dec 31, 2012
Gillette wrote:
1. <quoted text>
Then you had better study up on MA and who she was, etc.(Hint: the name is SARDONIC). It turns out MA is more proof AGAINST the idea of two first humans.
What, if anything, is a Mitochondrial Eve?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mitoeve....
<quoted text>

2. Any educated, thinking person SHOULD discard it. We know from MULTIPLE sources and measurements that the earth is 4.65 BILLION years old.
<quoted text>

3. Both IMPOSSIBLE and NEVER HAPPENED according to the vast geological evidence, etc. So says modern science.
<quoted text>

4. God's existence couldn't be a part of science and the scientific method unless such existence could be measured empirically. So we would probably still have the dichotomy between religion and science.
<quoted text>

5. If I found out today, it would likely be because God had decided to become naturally-measureable for once.

6. <quoted text>
So people's innate knowledge and life experience that in real life dead people do not come back to life is irrelevant to whether nonbelievers should drop their skepticism and accept the resurrection stories?
1. I understand the basic dichotomy between the Mitochondrial Eve and the Eve in the Bible. I'm merely focusing on the similarity. The production of the human population originating from one woman. Where this woman resided, or whether or not humans existed before the Mitochondrial Eve is beside my point.

2. Like what?

3. Key phrase: "So says modern science". However, that's not quite accurate. It should read: "So says modern scientists". Or better yet: "So says the 'majority' of modern scientists". Not all 'scientists' make that claim.

4. I'm not talking about the God in relation to science and the scientific method. If God reveals Himself to an individual, what effect will that have on his/her view of evolution? There's no rule that state's that if God reveals Himself, His revealing has to involve the ability to 'measure' His existence empirically. If God reveals Himself to any scientists,'any' scientist, without allowing for scientific measurement, how will that effect his/her view of evolution? From what I can tell, it effects it quite a bit.

5. What makes you think God cannot reveal Himself to you without being exposed to scientific measurement?

6. The Bible doesn't claim that your average human comes back to life. In the Bible's 4,000 year span, very few are recorded to have 'divinely' come back to life.

However, there are humans in the modern world who were close to burial before coming back to life. And some have attested to Biblical references of the afterlife.

Job

Santa Clara, CA

#398 Dec 31, 2012
Roland_Deschain wrote:
<quoted text>
Well another poster has already addressed a "young earth" and global flood. There is also this from the link I provided.
"The God-as-agent hypothesis is inherently a non-starter (thus far) because science requires any element of an acceptable explanation to have some evidential backing independent of its purported explanatory role. Absent that requirement, we’d be at liberty to claim the existence of some arbitrary process or entity that has the powers necessary to fill any explanatory gap — how convenient! Saying that God intervenes in nature, without a clear specification of divine powers that can be observationally confirmed, is to posit an unexplained explainer, a mysterious causal operator. The scientific project is intent on dispelling mysteries, not appealing to them."
As I stated, if there was no Bible, or any references to a worldwide flood, I'm sure it would never come into consideration. That doesn't mean that it did not happen. One doesn't have to succumb to the idea of a creator's intervention just because others claim it. The problem is the absolute refusal to consider its possibility. It may not be fun. It may not appear scientifically interesting. But 'fun' and 'interesting' are not requirements for truth.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#399 Dec 31, 2012
angelinaUK wrote:
<quoted text>He's had a tough few months but is thankfully doing OK now.
I'm glad to hear that. Thank you.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#400 Dec 31, 2012
Punisher wrote:
<quoted text>
2. They are rejected because no Creationists can make any real claim outside of religious faith that a Creator was involved. The claim can be made, but it remains an article of faith, not science. If science is to remain true to the scientific method, it HAS to reject claims that can not be tested in any real way.
Creation "science" HAS to figure a way to find and test for creation and not just keep making the claim.
If they can prove a young earth - scientifically - they have to do it, and not just keep making claims that it is...
No matter how you try and finagle things, this wedging creationism into anything scientific is nothing but what Xtianity has been doing for centuries - forcing its POV where its not needed and in fact not welcome...
And you don't think evolution, which also cannot be proven should be able force it's views? And who says it's not welcome. What makes you think many free-thinking people all reject creationism?
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#401 Dec 31, 2012
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that is not correct. Their cases may SEEM to be scientific to you and other Christians (which is very much the propaganda point of these Christian creationist institutes, etc.). But actually, their cases are Christian apologetics, using sciencey-sounding language.
They are so because they begin with the assumption (as conservative Christians) that the Bible story is literally true, then they see how they can try and shoehorn the vast scientific evidence into that mold. The vast majority of the evidence they cannot fit, so they just ignore or discard it.
In other words, a scientist goes wherever the evidence leads him (within the limits of the scientific method), while a creationist tries to uses bits and pieces of scientific evidence to 'prove' an a priori religious idea or belief.
No. There are scientists who had a problem with evolution 'before' they embraced Creationism.

Gillette, I hope you're not suggesting that proponents of evolution are all biased-free. If you don't think evolutionists ignore certain problems involving evolution, you may want to think again.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#402 Dec 31, 2012
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
As I stated, if there was no Bible, or any references to a worldwide flood, I'm sure it would never come into consideration. That doesn't mean that it did not happen. One doesn't have to succumb to the idea of a creator's intervention just because others claim it. The problem is the absolute refusal to consider its possibility. It may not be fun. It may not appear scientifically interesting. But 'fun' and 'interesting' are not requirements for truth.
Yeap, but evidence is a requirement of truth. The alleged flood never happened.

By the way, there is no 'Creation Science'. If ther were, creationsits would put it on the table for scientific scrutiny.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#403 Dec 31, 2012
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
No. There are scientists who had a problem with evolution 'before' they embraced Creationism.
Gillette, I hope you're not suggesting that proponents of evolution are all biased-free. If you don't think evolutionists ignore certain problems involving evolution, you may want to think again.
Fundies don't know squat about evolution. That problem?
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#404 Dec 31, 2012
Punisher wrote:
1. <quoted text>
Damn, I wish I could lay bets on what replies will be...I knew you'd pull the thief on the cross card.
I think the thief is a wholly specious example. You're talking about direct - verifiable (as far as the story goes) contact with Jesus in the FLESH. As he walked the Earth. I would allow that Jesus in such circumstances could and did save people instantly.

2. What I'm talking about and I think you know this - is/are claims made post-Jesus on Earth. Made by the person about themselves, NOT by Jesus. Jesus can certainly make the claim as he's the one who can write the actual ticket.

3. This is not a new topic/question...can a Believer truly make a claim of absolute salvation about themselves...? IMO, no. As being saved - thru Faith - is not supported as a One-off action.
1. Really? How could Jesus save anyone if He wasn't/isn't God?

2. Well again, how 'could' Jesus make any such claims in the flesh if He wasn't/isn't God? What do you mean by the one who can write the actual ticket?

So basically, the thief on the Cross, His disciples (with the exception of Judas), because they received a verbal assurance from God in the flesh, could safely state that they were 'saved'? But after Christ's death, no one could make 'said' claim?

3. No, it most definitely is not a new topic/question. But....there is logic involved. If someone is on the path of God's calling, experiencing peace during storms, seeing God's provision along the way....and in some more extreme circumstances where those who are mortally ill, or in prison for their faith...they've professed to have literally been visited by Jesus, then is it safe to believe that they are 'probably' saved? If a Chinese Christian is in a prison cell, and Jesus comes unto the cell and 'hugs' him/her (an actual testimony), then what would be the chances that if they died just then that Jesus wouldn't bring them into Heaven? Logically...what would you say?

Now, yes, when Christians are at 'ease', the presence of God can actually be 'discomforting'. If you read the letters to the churches in Revelations, you can see this contrast between believers God comforted, and those He discomforted. And that discomfort can cause a believer to examine him/herself to make sure he/she is in the faith (a suggestion made by Paul himself).
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#405 Dec 31, 2012
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I understand the basic dichotomy between the Mitochondrial Eve and the Eve in the Bible. I'm merely focusing on the similarity. The production of the human population originating from one woman. Where this woman resided, or whether or not humans existed before the Mitochondrial Eve is beside my point.
Well, the point of the science here is that there COULD not have been two discrete "first humans" who "procreated" together because the genes do not and CANNOT go back to two people who lived in the same time at the same place.

Also, it is plainly clear form both the fossils and the DNA that humanity gradually evolved out of earlier, proto-human species, rather than being created all at once and brand new as a species.

So the only "similarity" on this subject appears to be the word "Eve," which scientists used sardonically. Doesn't seem like much to hang your hat on, now does it?:)
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
2. Like what?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_earth
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
3. Key phrase: "So says modern science". However, that's not quite accurate. It should read: "So says modern scientists". Or better yet: "So says the 'majority' of modern scientists". Not all 'scientists' make that claim.
The few that promote a young earth and a global flood may have science degrees, but they are all, without exception, Christians of one stripe or another who are doing Christian apologetics rather than doing science on this subject -- i.e. they are assuming the Bible is the WOG and then trying to back-fit or shoe-horn the evidence to make it fit the Bible story, in the process ignoring 99% of the other evidence that points squarely at no flood and a very old earth.

The question for these people is always, "Are you doing SCIENCE at this moment, or promoting your religious beliefs?" Given that these claims of early earth/flood ALWAYS appear in Christian books and church websites rather than in peer-reviewed scientific literature, it should be clear that these folks are not doing science, and they know that well.

This is why I asked you earlier for any non-religious or Japanese or Chinese scientist (etc.) who thinks the world is 6000 years old and there was a worldwide flood STRICTLY ON THE EVIDENCE.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#406 Dec 31, 2012
Punisher wrote:
<quoted text>Its always been my POV that since Jesus NEVER mentions a Bible, anything similar to such a thing, as HIS one and ONLY Book - that the Bible is nothing but a Book compiled by men to only help them in a Church-like organization to teach a right line of story. The book was compiled for that purpose - to define the story line.
Jesus often quoted scripture, and John was instructed by God to write down the words written in the book of Revelation (I seem to recall this already being mentioned by another poster).

While Jesus didn't directly state that a Bible will be mass produced, again I would say there is 'logic' involved. If one comes into a firm belief in Jesus Christ, why 'shouldn't' they believe the Bible to be the entire Word of God?

The Bible really doesn't favor religious institutions any way. If the Bible 'could' have been changed by religious leaders further on down the road, I think it would have been. And it would have been changed in such a way to give religious piety a greater advantage. And I would say this is why the Bible was actually kept away from commoners in Europe. They couldn't read it (many not understanding Latin), so they didn't realize how the Bible 'doesn't' favor piety.

“Naturalism - Nature is Enough”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#407 Dec 31, 2012
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
As I stated, if there was no Bible, or any references to a worldwide flood, I'm sure it would never come into consideration.
That doesn't mean that it did not happen. One doesn't have to succumb to the idea of a creator's intervention just because others claim it. The problem is the absolute refusal to consider its possibility. It may not be fun. It may not appear scientifically interesting. But 'fun' and 'interesting' are not requirements for truth.
Ask yourself, why don't 'creation scientists'(ROFLMHO) walk the walk? Why don't they actually do some science - write a hypothesis, do the research, produce papers and submit them for peer-review? If they really thought they could prove global flooding took place this would be the way to go.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#408 Dec 31, 2012
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
No. There are scientists who had a problem with evolution 'before' they embraced Creationism.
Gillette, I hope you're not suggesting that proponents of evolution are all biased-free. If you don't think evolutionists ignore certain problems involving evolution, you may want to think again.
Virtually all modern scientists in the biological field and closely related fields that have to do with evolution, ACCEPT evolution basically as Darwin laid it out, i.e. descent with gene modification (through mutation, genetic drift and sexual recombination) PLUS the filtering action of natural selection.

This idea has become the backbone of all the modern life sciences for the past 150 years.

There is no doubt among scientists (who are not Christian evangelicals wanting to work a religious agenda here) that evolution has occurred and continues to occur.

There have always been disputes and discussion with the walls of science about the various MECHANISMS of evolution, i.e. HOW it takes place. Is it all gradual, slow development? Or does it go by fits and starts depending on the environment (i.e. pressure from asteroid or volcanic catastrophes, etc.)?

Or is it a combination of both the above? That is the general consensus among scientists.

What Christians trying to work an agenda here have done over the years (starting with the Jehovah's Witnesses) is creatively cut and snip quotes from scientific papers and books that make it SEEM as if established evolutionary scientists don't actually "believe in evolution" at all. Or that they really reject it.

Very dishonest on the part of these religious folks. They do not cover themselves with glory on this score. And why should the religion they profess be believed or given any credence at all if they cannot even understand the science they oppose or be bothered to get it right -- or worse yet, deliberately misrepresent it?
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#409 Dec 31, 2012
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Virtually all modern scientists in the biological field and closely related fields that have to do with evolution, ACCEPT evolution basically as Darwin laid it out, i.e. descent with gene modification (through mutation, genetic drift and sexual recombination) PLUS the filtering action of natural selection.
This idea has become the backbone of all the modern life sciences for the past 150 years.
There is no doubt among scientists (who are not Christian evangelicals wanting to work a religious agenda here) that evolution has occurred and continues to occur.
There have always been disputes and discussion with the walls of science about the various MECHANISMS of evolution, i.e. HOW it takes place. Is it all gradual, slow development? Or does it go by fits and starts depending on the environment (i.e. pressure from asteroid or volcanic catastrophes, etc.)?
Or is it a combination of both the above? That is the general consensus among scientists.
What Christians trying to work an agenda here have done over the years (starting with the Jehovah's Witnesses) is creatively cut and snip quotes from scientific papers and books that make it SEEM as if established evolutionary scientists don't actually "believe in evolution" at all. Or that they really reject it.
Very dishonest on the part of these religious folks. They do not cover themselves with glory on this score. And why should the religion they profess be believed or given any credence at all if they cannot even understand the science they oppose or be bothered to get it right -- or worse yet, deliberately misrepresent it?
James Shapiro of the University of Chicago, a molecular biologist and a deeply committed evolutionist, made this candid remark in response to Behe's work:
“There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject--evolution--with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity. James Shapiro, "In the Details...What?," National Review, September 19, 1996, pp. 62-65.
He is right. Just ask someone to explain how natural selection creates information for DNA in billions of cells.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#410 Dec 31, 2012
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
James Shapiro of the University of Chicago, a molecular biologist and a deeply committed evolutionist, made this candid remark in response to Behe's work:
“There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject--evolution--with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity. James Shapiro, "In the Details...What?," National Review, September 19, 1996, pp. 62-65.
He is right. Just ask someone to explain how natural selection creates information for DNA in billions of cells.
Bill Buckley's National Review must use really big print if that's all they can fit in four pages.

Here is Shapiro explaining his understanding of the contribution of genomic feedback and hybridization to evolution in response to environmental disruption. Toward the end he calls intelligent design ridiculous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch ...

Don't bother with it, Jeff, since Shapiro uses big words.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Why doesent God cure cancer? 3 min Jesus Is 92
TheSpiritOfGod DEFEATS the DEVIL " dollarsbill " 10 min dollarsbill 4
> Our God Breathed Bible < 11 min dollarsbill 19
Reason: Christianity's Nemisis 13 min QUITTNER Nov24 2014 68
Why doesn't God let its believers know who has ... 27 min par five 101
Are World Events Pointing to End Times 1 hr dollarsbill 1,965
Is Paul a false Apostle? (Sep '13) 1 hr dollarsbill 1,716
I don't understand 7 hr dollarsbill 525
Cookie's Place (Oct '13) 13 hr _hard luck 16,475

Christian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE