The workings of man in the divine realm are pretty obvious for anybody who is looking for them. Just read translations of the 1455 Gutenberg Bible and the 1769 King James Bible. Three hundred years and a paradigm shift occurred between those two printings and the literal edict to stone adulterers for example was removed in the process. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is a relatively recent event.
Words spoken in the Bible are relatively easy to change in translation. Major events (i.e. actions of gOD) are harder to obscure. Maybe that is why the wORD of gOD shows such a delineation between how hE speaks to man in current translations and hIS methodology throughout the course of the "greatest story ever written"? It's hard to turn plagues and floods into mosquito bites and martinis.
because the origin of science is merely philosophy that was tested. but the concepts themselves are the key to science because without them there is nothing to test, so to dismiss conceptual ideas on the basis that we have yet to observe or test it, which can equally be the result of our inability to observe it, not the absence of its existence, as it could be our imaginations, isn't reasonable, especially if the concept is grounded in reasonable projections of what we do know. here is a perfect example of why the idea that reason depends on observation and testing, which is based on an accepted scientific theory of where our universe is headed, is flawed conceptually. as galaxies continue to speed away from each other at ever increasing speeds, in 200 billion years each galaxy will be so far away from one another and traveling so fast away from one another that the light from each will never reach one another. in short, the night sky will be completely absent of any other galaxy in the universe. To a young species in any galaxy with the exact level of scientific ability that we have at this moment, to them their galaxy would be the entire universe based on observation and testing. to them, it would be reasonable to believe what they can only see and test, and they would be wrong. but reasonable. now, add in the hypothetical situation of a book from long before, say 200 billion years in the past, that is somehow on the planet, and that book explains that there are other galaxies in the universe that they would never be able to see, observe or test, because of the natural course of the universe. they would have to take as faith the scientific concept that they read that it is true. but the equivalent of you, on that planet, would say that it is unreasonable to believe the science that we know as fact simply because they cannot test or observe it, even if the concept of it was sound based on other scientific knowledge. that isn't science, that is pseudo-science, and pseudo-science isn't reasonable at all. true science cannot dismiss anything that is conceptually reasonable.
I feel like this is just talking in semantic circles. There is a difference in completely "dismissing" something that is "conceptually reasonable" and not seeing a point in believing in it. In your hypothetical example, there are other galaxies out there that cannot been observed, but an old book says they did exist. Okay. So what? Debating fervently that those unobservable, untestable galaxies must actually exist when it is impossible to observe or test them is pointless. Pointless. We might as well debate about whether or not leprechauns actually exist despite them not being observable or testable. They were described in old books, after all. Should science not dismiss their existence? What about fairies? Or unicorns? We have old books talking about them, too. I don't dismiss the existence of a supreme being out of hand with 100% certainty now and forever. I just see no reason to believe in one at this point in time. What you're describing isn't even a debate-worthy topic. You're saying we have to believe in anything and everything because, "WHO KNOWS WHAT MIGHT BE TRUE?" Great. Fine. Have fun with that. You won't learn much about things that are relevant to your life that way, but that's not my problem. Telling someone else they need to disprove a negative is simply ridiculous. ETA: Let me put this another way, and I'll try to do it as simply as possible... You said, "true science cannot dismiss something that is conceptually reasonable," as though this "Science" chases down answers to anything and everything willy nilly. That's not where science starts. That's not how science works. Any and all science begins with observations of the world/universe around us. It then asks a question about what might be causing this observation. Scientists take a guess at an answer to that question. Experiments are designed to answer that question. Information is gained (if the experiment is designed properly). But it all starts with the observation. Not the imagination that some observation might be able to be made someday. Your hypothetical example would never fall under the realm of "Science." There is nothing to be observed.
When you stop and think about it, nothing makes sense. Space, time, deities, etc. Why does anything even exist? Something can't come from nothing. It's all just mind boggling. I personally believe there's a God but just not one any Church preaches of. I mostly do so on faith but when I stop and just think of all the laws of the universe and how complex our bodies are (dna), you can't help but feel like you were made by someone and you have a purpose. Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2
I don't mean to get all preachy but 1 Corinthians 2:14 really supports your comments, "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them... " I don't understand all the mysteries of God but I do know I'm a changed person ... it's hard to argue against that.
I prefer the more exciting parts of the book like Ezekiel 23:20 For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses. Yep, its pure smut alright. Gotta love it.
Yes you godless libtard Marxist fuck, there is nothing afterwords. Now do us a favor and kill yourself; then tell us what you see. If you don't see anything, at least we have the relief of not having to read your senseless baboon ramblings.
I bet my dick is far bigger than yours. And by intimating that a baboon can ramble, you are admitting that evolution is not only possible, but has happened. Which makes your pathetic post senseless in itself. But please keep your political beliefs to yourself. Political discussion is ego masturbation.
Is it cowardice or ego that allows you to refuse the idea that man was created by something other than accident? My money is on ego.
It's neither. Context matters. If the context is that it's 3am during freshman year in college and the gravity bong has been packed for the twelfth time, then sure, in that context, we can talk about how, "Hey, man, what if we were really just created by alien scientists?" But if the context is how people are expected to live their lives, facing issues big and small, then this concept has zero relevance to me. I'm not refusing this notion any more than I am "refusing" the notion that unicorns might actually exist. And this has been explicitly stated several times over. Maybe unicorns existed. Maybe they didn't. Either way, there's not exactly a compelling argument in favor of them kicking around now, and I see no reason to even begin to subscribe to that type of argument. Make a real argument (and not some stoner Philosophy 101 argument) as to why the believing in the existence of some kind of supreme being is a better choice than not believing and I'll happily listen. I've yet you hear you make one yet. I've just seen a lot of insulting other people and asking pseudo-"deep" questions.
You and I obviously have a different take on the bible, The bible is not a book of science and never has it been intended to be, it's a record of gods purpose for humans and why he allowed the devil time to prove his allegations that humans are better off on their own. 1. science does not have to prove the devil exist, he has been exposed by Jesus himself, and while they conversed (mathew 4:1-4) the devil himself said that all the governments of the world were his to offer to Jesus. 2, evolution is still a theory no matter what the science world says, and according to the bible timeline, humans have been around for only 6000 years. Example dogs, people have been cross breeding dogs for hundreds of years, and if you look at dogs that are in existence its easy to see the variety, I think just the Mastiff alone is responsible for 6 of the most popular breeds: Rottweiler, Boxer, Great Dane, Leonberger, Sharpei, New Foundland, Great Pyrenees. They are all different dogs but come from the same lineage, Bull mastiff being crossbred. The same can happen with birds 3..... 4. you are right the physical universe was created over billions of years, I was just responding to those who state that the earth was created in 6 days of 24 hr periods, the bible does not teach that. 5. Again you are right but to a degree, the bible states Cain took wives for himself, where did they come from? the bible states Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters, because humans were closer to their state of perfection it's logical to conclude they were his sisters. The bible teaches that the laws prohibiting incest did not come into effect until the mosaic law. We are probably going to just disagree, I just wanted to respectfully reply to you.
Yes, it is a theory... but a scientific theory has a different meaning than the everyday use of the word theory. Evolution is not just speculation or a hunch. A scientific theory is a framework that provides an explanation for all of the observed facts, and we're not just talking about a few dozen random facts or observations here. The theory of relativity is also "just" a theory which has extensive evidence behind it. The cell theory is another example of a "theory" that has mountains of evidence behind it. A scientific theory explains what has been seen, can reasonably predict how things should behave (at least in controlled circumstances), and has been supported by numerous experiments. The word you seem to be trying to ascribe to evolution is a hypothesis. Evolution has been definitively shown to be much more than this... if it wasn't, it would not still exist. Except the examples you give are different breeds, not different species... i.e. they can interbreed. And the differentiation happened under directed and controlled circumstances. It was artificial selection. That's a much longer process with animals left to their own devices. Additionally, humans have been breeding domesticated dogs for over 15,000 years and differentiating them for at least 4,000 years.
Evolution isn't theory it's proven. Watch old NBA or NFL films and that's just the last 30 years. Why do you think the NFL changed the rules to allow OL men to extend their arms? If they didn't OL men would have lost their arms.
But you can't even prove Jesus himself existed. Don't you realize you are using nothing but circular reasoning to support your argument? How do you know the devil exists? Jesus said so. How do you know Jesus existed? The bible says so How do you know the bible is historically and literally accurate? God wrote it How do you know god wrote it? It says so in the bible. It can go on and on forever, it doesn't prove itself accurate or evolution false Scientific theories are backed by facts. That has already been mentioned in this thread. Theories aren't just guesses in science. Different breeds of dog are proof that evolution is real. If it was not real, that type of breeding would not work. They are actually all the same species and all came from the Wolf. Your example with the birds was not even close to what selective breeding of traits has done over the years in dogs. We're talking speciation, not sub species. There is a difference. Humans have been around MUCH LONGER than 6000 years, same with wolves and dogs. Nope. It's logical to conclude the story is bogus due to our understanding of evolution and genetics. Adam and eve were never just one pair of humans. It is completely illogical to assume this. The human race never dipped below a few thousand and mitochondrial eve refers to a tribe of early humans, not a single woman. Then of course you have the dozen+ discovered hominid species that clearly show slow development and change over time into what we have today in modern humans.
I find this statement amusing, because both things are notorious in religion. The belief in god is associated with the biggest ego stroking ever known to man, believing that we are special and were specifically created by an all powerful god, that loves us, in his own image. You want to talk about ego? Let's talk about the belief in intelligent design. :lol: at saying an ego is a reason not to believe when it's the exact opposite. Everybody wants to be special and live forever. Unfortunately for now, it's nothing more than a pipe dream. It's a belief that comforts people, who need a reason for their existence. Not everybody needs a reason and it isn't egotistical. It's logical. Now we get to cowardice. Saying he's afraid to believe is the same nonsense that religious folk very often push on you to convince you to join. Join us or else! If you don't believe, you will suffer eternally in a fire pit! Believing something out of fear is not true belief. I just wonder where you get fear, by him rejecting a god that nobody can even provide a shred of evidence to verify his hesitance. Where exactly does fear enter the equation? I still can't tell which side you are actually arguing for, it seems to jump all over the place.
He is on his side. The side that likes to ridicule who ever steps forward with a reason that only his beliefs are correct and all others are wrong. This is his playground now that the TT forum is gone and the idiots keep feeding him juicy treats all day long.
