Regardless of faith: do you believe the bible is the word of god?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
magnifier661 said:
I don't know buddy. It seems this "preacher" actually explained it very scientifically. I would like for you to meet the challenge of the preacher to explain this without using "theoretically", "Most likely", or other words that is based only on theory.
Click to expand...

Then you are not interested in speaking scientifically. Only religion deals in absolutes.

[video=youtube;wgpytjlW5wU]
 
TripTango said:
Then you are not interested in speaking scientifically. Only religion deals in absolutes.
Click to expand...

Science, different from Christianity, must deal with facts. Without facts; it is just a educated guess. There is a big difference between the two. In the case, or argument that was presented; the Christian preacher is asking "Science" to explain "symbiosis" and it's connection or "contradiction" to evolution.
 
magnifier661 said:
Science, different from Christianity, must deal with facts. Without facts; it is just a educated guess. There is a big difference between the two. In the case, or argument that was presented; the Christian preacher is asking "Science" to explain "symbiosis" and it's connection or "contradiction" to evolution.
Click to expand...

I don't understand what is contradictory about the idea that two organisms evolve in such a way that they become mutually beneficial to (or even dependent upon) each other. Where is the contradiction?

ID believers like to take complexity within systems as evidence for a brilliant planner, but this is simply not valid. There are many, many examples in the natural world of complicated intricacy evolving from very simple initial rules. (Snowflakes are one of my personal faves.)

And again, science is PERFECTLY HAPPY to have unanswered questions in the hows and whys around us. You say "educated guess" as if that's a bad thing, when the vast majority of what we have developed in terms of scientific understanding stems from "educated guesses". By contrast, religion fills in all of the unknown blanks with Magic Marker, regardless of whether it jives with reality, and insists that it is somehow the responsibility of everyone else to prove them wrong. Science specializes in educated guesses -- religion just provides uneducated answers.
 
TripTango said:
I don't understand what is contradictory about the idea that two organisms evolve in such a way that they become mutually beneficial to (or even dependent upon) each other. Where is the contradiction?

ID believers like to take complexity within systems as evidence for a brilliant planner, but this is simply not valid. There are many, many examples in the natural world of complicated intricacy evolving from very simple initial rules. (Snowflakes are one of my personal faves.)

And again, science is PERFECTLY HAPPY to have unanswered questions in the hows and whys around us. You say "educated guess" as if that's a bad thing, when the vast majority of what we have developed in terms of scientific understanding stems from "educated guesses". By contrast, religion fills in all of the unknown blanks with Magic Marker, regardless of whether it jives with reality, and insists that it is somehow the responsibility of everyone else to prove them wrong. Science specializes in educated guesses -- religion just provides uneducated answers.
Click to expand...

Educated Guess isn't a bad thing. I promote it. It's when that guess is taught to young children as fact. The theory of evolution is "A theory" yet, in schools they explain it as fact. No theory... I knew of a child in school that refused to learn the "Science of evolution", and the school threatened to fail her. She asked the science teacher; are we in English class learning non-fiction and was given a demerit.

When the parents went to school and spoke with the principle; he explained that she must do her homework to the school's curriculum or she will fail.

This girl wasn't even a Christian but doubted "evolution" and didn't want to learn something she felt was just theory. I am going to try and search for the article. It was like 7 years ago when I wrote it.
 
magnifier661 said:
The difference is "Gravity" is called "Theory" in school. Evolution is called "Fact". Look up biology books that are circulated in school. They do not use the word "Theory"; but explaining "Gravity" is explained based on theory.
Click to expand...

I don't have any bio texts handy -- can you show me an example?
 
Scientists are required to question evolution. The theory has holes. Scientists don't understand it completely. I take exception with the preacher calling it a "ruse", like scientists are out to pull one over on the public.

BTW, I just checked one of the undergrads textbooks (Reese, Taylor, Simon, and Dickey, Campbell Biology: Concepts & Connections with MasteringBiology®, 7th edition (2011)) and it is referred to as a "theory" in the chapter introduction.
 
For those maybe not interested in the "Supernatural Bible"; but want or need proof of certain mentions of characters in the Bible; try this link. Skim through the verse and just read it like a history book. The archeological evidence is pretty cool to prove just how "historically correct" the Bible is.

http://www.bible-history.com/


And for those wanting more "Scientific opinions or definitions"; click this link. There maybe things you disagree on; but it seems the amount of energy used to question the Bible can be used to study from biblical scientists.

http://www.godandscience.org/

What I find extremely intriguing is the Bible has been argued, even here in this forum that it was written or made after Christ's death. And if that's actually true; they had one hell of a support team to chronologically reference actual history for over thousands of years. I wonder what computer they used?
 
Another cool read is the archeological find of the possible "Noah's Ark"

I'm sure many have seen or read about this before; but I always like the reference.
 
magnifier661 said:
Just read this article and it will explain what the books actually say[/URL]
Click to expand...

I may have missed something, but I don't see anything from the book itself showing that it somehow treats evolution as gospel. ;)

Evolution is a theory. It is currently the theory best supported by available evidence, which is still saying quite a bit. That doesn't mean it won't be contradicted by evidence in the future and revised or even scrapped -- science never claims to produce infallible answers -- and it isn't claiming that god was not involved. In fact, many Christians believe that evolution has been the brush with which God has painted life on Earth. (Science is silent on this matter, since it doesn't even attempt to answer the "why" questions). It is only claiming to be the best explanation based on current evidence.

The "THIS IS A THEORY" stickers are silly. Why aren't they demanding similar stickers for gravity? Or for quantum mechanics? Or for atomic theory? Why not just wrap the whole damn book in a sticker?
 
This video is pretty cool, explaining the connection of "Joseph" building the first pyramid.

[video=youtube;vaN2acVMGC8]

Also explains Moses and being a figure in Egypt.
 
Any old boat dug up is Noah's ark. Any image of a dude in his thirties with long hair and a beard is a portrait of Jesus.

The book Forrest Gump is historically correct. I guess that proves the character Forrest Gump was real and did all that crazy stuff.

Aesop's Fables were written by a Greek slave at the same time the first testament was written. They cover all the worthwhile moral lessons that the bible(s) eventually covered (plagiarized?), but acknowledge the characters and stories are fictional devices used to illustrate a point rather than expect anyone to take them as literal fact. It is almost certain the bible was originally written with that intention.
 
MARIS61 said:
Any old boat dug up is Noah's ark. Any image of a dude in his thirties with long hair and a beard is a portrait of Jesus.

The book Forrest Gump is historically correct. I guess that proves the character Forrest Gump was real and did all that crazy stuff.

Aesop's Fables were written by a Greek slave at the same time the first testament was written. They cover all the worthwhile moral lessons that the bible(s) eventually covered (plagiarized?), but acknowledge the characters and stories are fictional devices used to illustrate a point rather than expect anyone to take them as literal fact. It is almost certain the bible was originally written with that intention.
Click to expand...

Um, you are completely forgetting something. Like the "Dead Sea" scrolls; it's basically dated somewhere around 50 AD right? Don't you find it funny that the exact measurements in the bible, written thousands of years after the carbon date of this exact "boat LOL - being 500 ft long isn't a boat" is pretty interesting?

And why the hell would a 500 ft boat be constructed dated thousands of years BC? And even weirder. In an area that is so far from the nearest sea?
 
magnifier661 said:
Um, you are completely forgetting something. Like the "Dead Sea" scrolls; it's basically dated somewhere around 50 AD right? Don't you find it funny that the exact measurements in the bible, written thousands of years after the carbon date of this exact "boat LOL - being 500 ft long isn't a boat" is pretty interesting?

And why the hell would a 500 ft boat be constructed dated thousands of years BC? And even weirder. In an area that is so far from the nearest sea?
Click to expand...

No stranger than boats today having specs listed in sales brochures.

As for 500' boats, that's how they built them back then. Their main use was for mass migration so dingies wouldn't do.
 
MARIS61 said:
No stranger than boats today having specs listed in sales brochures.

As for 500' boats, that's how they built them back then. Their main use was for mass migration so dingies wouldn't do.
Click to expand...

Really?!?!?! 500 ft boats dated back 6,000+ years?

You talk like people in the 6000-7000 B.C. had the means and technology to construct devices like this.

Please show me another archaeological find of other boats that size dated back then? How about instead of just theorizing your opinion; watch the video, the archaeologic evidence and then get back to me. You are talking from your ass more than your brain. You want actual evidence, then immediately discredit it without even reviewing the evidence. I think it's funny that you toss the label "Blind faith" on us, when you are proving "Blind pessimism". Kinda contradicting don't you agree?

You still haven't answered the question of actual scrolls found and dated around 40-85 A.D. explain historical events that happened thousands of years before it was written. Did they use a P.C. or Mac, and what excavations methods did the people of 40-85 BC use to know exact locations and talk of complete civilizations thousands of miles away from them?
 
As for the great flood destroying all life other than noah and a few mammals as "god" claimed he was doing, seems unlikely since 9/10ths of all life lives in the oceans.

Maybe god had a Doh! moment.
 
MARIS61 said:
As for the great flood destroying all life other than noah and a few mammals as "god" claimed he was doing, seems unlikely since 9/10ths of all life lives in the oceans.

Maybe god had a Doh! moment.
Click to expand...

Wrong, he didn't say all life.

7 The LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them." --- This talks about animals on land, not sea. But thanks for proving once again that you aren't basing your opinion on actual facts. This fact being what the Bible actually says.

Are you just speaking from what you hear or what you read in the Bible?
 
magnifier661 said:
Um, you are completely forgetting something. Like the "Dead Sea" scrolls; it's basically dated somewhere around 50 AD right? Don't you find it funny that the exact measurements in the bible, written thousands of years after the carbon date of this exact "boat LOL - being 500 ft long isn't a boat" is pretty interesting?

And why the hell would a 500 ft boat be constructed dated thousands of years BC? And even weirder. In an area that is so far from the nearest sea?
Click to expand...

All supposed noahs ark "finds" have been disproven. Not sure which one you are referring to.
 
MARIS61 said:
All supposed noahs ark "finds" have been disproven. Not sure which one you are referring to.
Click to expand...

Look at the link and come back to me. You may not being its Noah's ark but will you agree it's a 500 ft boat? Lol
 
magnifier661 said:
Wrong, he didn't say all life.

7 The LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them." --- This talks about animals on land, not sea. But thanks for proving once again that you aren't basing your opinion on actual facts. This fact being what the Bible actually says.

Are you just speaking from what you hear or what you read in the Bible?
Click to expand...

God's very words, supposedly...

Genesis 6.17
And I, behold, I do bring the flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; every thing that is in the earth shall perish.

Pretty sure most of the plants would do okay too.
 
magnifier661 said:
Really?!?!?! 500 ft boats dated back 6,000+ years?

You talk like people in the 6000-7000 B.C. had the means and technology to construct devices like this.
Click to expand...

You talk like they didn't, which is silly.

We're talking elementary carpentry here.
 
MARIS61 said:
All supposed noahs ark "finds" have been disproven. Not sure which one you are referring to.
Click to expand...

But you are right that there are many arguments that this isn't the ark. But I like looking at it because the arguments are fun to read. Did you review the other archeological finds?
 
magnifier661 said:
Please show me another archaeological find of other boats that size dated back then?
Click to expand...

Show me yours first, since the internet provides nothing resembling a credible find of Noah's ark.

As for the size of said boat...

Genesis 6-15
And this is how thou shalt make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.

Genesis 6-16
A light shalt thou make to the ark, and to a cubit shalt thou finish it upward; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.

Cubits at that time were roughly 20-21 inches, so it's approximately 500 feet long.

Show me the boat.
 
Big old ships...

Athenaeus gives us a detailed description of a very large warship, built by Ptolemy Philopator (c. 244– - 205 BC). It was 130m (420 feet) long, 18m (57 feet) wide, and 22m (72 feet) high to the top of her gunwale. From the top of its sternpost to the water line was 24m (79.5 feet). In comparison the length of the Titanic was 243 m and the largest Oil Tanker around 485 m. It had four steering oars 14m (45 feet) long. It had 40 tiers of oars. The oars on the uppermost tier were 18m (57 feet) long. The oars were counter-balanced with lead to make them easier to handle though its size alone would impress and the broad deck would make a excellent weapons platform.. It had a double bow and a double stern and carried seven rams, of which one was the leader and the others were of gradually reducing size. It had 12 under-girders 275m (900 feet) long. The ship was manned by 400 sailors to handle the rigging and the sails, 4000 rowers and 2850 men in arms for a total of 7250 men. This ship was too large to be of much practical use. Some things of interest about this ship. First, there are no forests worth mentioning in Egypt. All the lumber had to be imported from elsewhere, likely Lebanon. This ship had a crew that was almost twice as large as that of the largest aircraft carrier we have ever built! Athenaeus describes other very large ships and boats of antiquity. One ship had a catapult designed by Archimedes that could hurl a 55 kg (120 pound) stone over 180 m (600 feet).

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/GiantShips.htm
 
magnifier661 said:
Another cool read is the archeological find of the possible "Noah's Ark"

I'm sure many have seen or read about this before; but I always like the reference.
Click to expand...

It seems that even Christian scholars think little of Mr. Wyatt's findings:

http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/BoatShaped.html
One of the points of interest which has been researched concerns an unusual rock formation about 20 miles away from the mountain. First discovered from the air many years ago it has been well studied by numerous scientists, and nearly all are convinced that it is of geologic significance only. I have personally conducted two rather complete geologic surveys and have had access to most of the subsurface and core-drilling data gathered by others, and am convinced (as is nearly everyone) that nothing there is present which does not have a perfectly rational and simple geologic explanation.

Unfortunately, there are two individuals which feel otherwise, and promote the site as the remains of Noah's Ark. Neither have geologic or archaeologic training, and in their investigations both have used methods which are not reliable in gathering their data. Furthermore, they have not allowed others to see their data, preferring instead to make statements about the data only. Both can give convincing talks on the subject, and both have written books describing their experiences (not their data), but to my knowledge, all who have critically evaluated the site and/or the methods and reports of the two advocates are convinced that both are mistaken. In fact, many of their claims are in direct conflict with facts I and others have gathered at the site.
Click to expand...

http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/index.html
I have telephone interviewed most of the people on WAR's Noah's Ark video. Not one single person I spoke with on that video presently believes that Ron Wyatt's site is Noah's Ark. Some are outraged that Wyatt is still using film clips which make them look like they are substantiating Wyatt's claims when, in fact, the opposite is the case. Listed below are some of the individuals who appear on the video. Compare the story WAR continues to sell with the actual words written by the scientists after doing extensive research on the site. They no longer believe it is Noah's Ark. They believe it is a natural geological formation. As to the so-called discoveries on Ron Wyatt's video entitled "Presentation of Discoveries," those interviewed whom Ron Wyatt presented with his "facts" put little or no archaeological value on any of the material. "Fraud" was the word most often used when discussing these so-called discoveries. Read the letters from archaeologists within Ron Wyatt's own denomination, Seventh Day Adventist, and you will see that even those who would have an interest in substantiating Ron Wyatt's claims find little or no scientific evidence to support any of these discoveries.
Click to expand...
 
OdenRoyLMA2 said:
I'm curious to hear what your arguments are on how symbiosis actually proves evolution.
Click to expand...

i didn't say it 'proves' anything, but symbiosis/mutualism is a *prediction* of the theory of evolution by environmental selection, not a conundrum for it. if true we would EXPECT to find these types of relationships in nature between different species that have evolved interacting together, each constituting part of the other's physical environment.

the video deliberately misrepresents this as a problem where one species exists as fixed (not changing) and the other enters the picture and must adapt to it, when in actuality according to the theory both species would be evolving together in tandem, building the relationship on both sides through selection of *both* species. both species are changing over time, not just one.

the trouble here is you need at least a basic understanding of what the theory actually says in order to recognize the difference between someone who knows what they are talking about (such as a working scientist) and bullshit youtube religious propaganda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top