auggybendoggy October 31, 2003 Share auggybendoggy Member October 31, 2003 Im certainly not an evolutionist (as Watchtower will confirm) but I don't think anyone argues evoluton on all matter. I believe it's restricted to organisms. A rock can not change within itself uless atmospheric changes are made to it. Unlike creatures rocks and dirt don't adapt. They have no need to...they are not alive. Living creatures are different, even the smallest one can adapt (basic bacterial or viral evolution). So I don't think seeing the earth fall apart disproves evolution. Nor does the universe getting ready to collapse disprove evolution (to my knowledge). Evoluton still is only a theory. I do think the fact that you stated the inbetween creatures are not alive is somewhat still hard for me to swallow any anwers thorwn thus far. I hear E'ists say its survival of the fittest yet monkeys are still here. again it seems to be more survival of both the weak and the strong. If there were no monkeys today I could see a stronger case for evolution pointing to them saying look how human like they were....but like all weaker species they died out. But in fact they are still here thus concluding that they are the top of they're evolution status (NOT MAN). But this does not solve for creationism. All it points out is man from mokey has difficulties. What if man evolved from creature that was not monkey but monkey like (just as man is monkey like)? What if that monkey like creature is no longer here today? Simply because might not come from monkey does not mean Genesis is literal. Auggy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Slayer October 31, 2003 Share Shadow Slayer Member October 31, 2003 oki keep seeing this word addaptation pop up. well you know what adaptation truly is? all it is is we have a gene pool as a "species" and all adaptation is is the small amount of variation allowed within that gene pool. but there are limits and you see that when you look at, say for example you look at the pygmy horses they breed and stuff like that. yah they are slightly different from the original horse but they could still mate and bear offspring. this "adap[tation dosnt by any means prove evolution in fact it proves the opposite because you will notice that the closerr the species gets to the limits of there gene pool the shorter there life span is and the more suceptible they are to disease and harmful mutation. in other words you can keep breeding horses to get smaler and smaler horses but you will never get a horse as small as a ant. why? because yes god did create in these animals space for variation so that they could live in different climates but there is a definent limit.. take for example corn. do you know how long they have been cross breeding corn to try and make a bigger and better corn stalk? wel they have found that if you tamper with it too much and try to make it better it eventually just breaks down and you have to take one step back from it and thats the best you can do. therefore yes there is "micro evolution" (variation) but there is no macro evolution. i get so sick of people using micro to try to prove macro... just because some animals have gone to opposit sides of the gene pool dosnt mean that there going to poof change into another animal. and if macro evolution happens show me an example today of it happening. look at the gazzele in africa. the weaker get eaten all the time but hey guess what??? there still gazeles. and they always will be . ok im donw. ' S>S> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchtower October 31, 2003 Share Watchtower Member October 31, 2003 *Edit: A Link i just found http://www.mattox.com/genome/micro-macro.html I don't know! What if those gazelles are becoming stronger and faster in the meantime? I don't claim to know all the ins and outs of the micro/macro specifications and what is right or not, we're just really talking about modern man and prehistoric man.. Not monkies, or giraffes or japenese beetles Auggy, I'm not saying that modern man came from modern chimpanzee or something. Infact, the fossils we've found are more of a "man-like" creature with not as refined features.. Some upright, some not. Tkae a couple ice ages into consideration and the how many other species that have become extinct and you can almost imagine.. Not a whole lot of mammals made it through these times.. Geography played a role in this as well.. Our livable habitat shrunk. I know what you are saying though. if you match us up against any other living thing, we're way advanced. On the same hand, I see the very early man and see the social and intelectual beginnings and that kind of smooths it out for me.. They were definitely here. No arguments. They we're definitely not like us. No arguments. Where'd they go? Maybe there still here? Maybe we're an alien form Again I ask, how old is this planet? Please answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Playaa November 1, 2003 Share Playaa Member November 1, 2003 Again I ask, how old is this planet? Please answer. that's another one of those questions that Christians can't possibly answer because it's so obvious to us (because of our beliefs) and non-Christians will instantly say we're idiots (because of their beliefs) but I'll answer anyway. Science says the world is billions of years old. God says (through logic, he never actually SAID this) the world is somewhere closer to 10,000 years old...how can this be possible? He made things complete. (i.e. Adam and Eve were adults...the chicken came before the egg, trees were created full grown...etc) there...I know you'll flame my post but I don't care because I can't check it from work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchtower November 1, 2003 Share Watchtower Member November 1, 2003 Is that what all christians believe? And God is playing this trick on us with fossils and stuff frozen in the ice that tells us different? When you watch the shows about ancient people being found high in the mountains preserved in ice, you think it's some sort of dupe? I'm just wondering how you've(and others) been able to maintain that belief given the world around us.. Where u from again? :lookie: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crowbar November 1, 2003 Share Crowbar Member November 1, 2003 actually, I do believe the earth is around 10k years old. I did a lot of research on this awhile ago, 5, 6 years, so I'm a little fuzzy on the specific scientific content, but basically, the Carbon dating system is flawed. It has to do with the fact that Carbon (which is measured to determine the age of an object) is released when an organism dies. Say you have a tree, and it dies. Carbon immediatly starts dispersing into the air. By the time someone comes around to take a measurement, maybe a quarter, half, most of the carbon is gone, making the measurement flawed. Here, I did some research. Take a look at this page, http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a391b8e886a42.htm. One of the things they mention in there is how scientists dated rocks in the Grand Canyon. This is what happened: "A popular and supposedly foolproof method was used on two lava flows in the Grand Canyon that should be ideal for radioactive age estimation. The results were similarly bad. Young basalt rock at the Canyon's top produced an age estimate 270 million years older than ancient basalt rock at the Canyon's bottom. The problem seems to arise from basic wrong assumptions in the method (rubidium-strontium isochron). If such a sophisticated method is so flawed, geologist Dr. Steven Austin rightly wonders, "Has anyone successfully dated a Grand Canyon rock?"" This site too, http://www.apologeticspress.org/defdocs/rr...93/r&r9310a.htm, has an easier to read description of what happens exactly, and the problems with it. Basically the most glaring problem is that the dating process assumes that the object being dated has maintained a constant rate of decay. It does not take into account any minerals entering/leaving the object other than the parent and daughter components being dated. From my Christian perspective, this validates the flood of Noah, since a massive dissaster like that would greatly immbalance the particles in sediment, making much of the earth seem older. That's strictly from me though, I don't have any professional evidence to back that up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auggybendoggy November 1, 2003 Share auggybendoggy Member November 1, 2003 sorry watch, I didn't know you wanted a direct answer as much as my system of thinking. To answer the question I believe the earth is billions of years olf. Again I don't buy the 10K theory or the Adam naval theory. It's not that I say God coulnd't make Adam with belly button therfore he could make the stars appear billions and trillions of light years away...I just believe it's older than 10000 years. But on the other hand to believe the earth is OOOLLDDD doesn't mean one HAS to subscribe to evolution. Many Christians feel that if they believe the earth is older than 10K than their faith is damaged. But I too am not sure about how to interpret Genesis concerning creation of the universe. Revelation is full of symbolism and if taken literal leads to all kinds of problems. Is it possible Genesis is this way too? ahhhh the great debate of dispensationalism and covenant theology Auggy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Playaa November 1, 2003 Share Playaa Member November 1, 2003 Is that what all christians believe? And God is playing this trick on us with fossils and stuff frozen in the ice that tells us different? When you watch the shows about ancient people being found high in the mountains preserved in ice, you think it's some sort of dupe? I'm just wondering how you've(and others) been able to maintain that belief given the world around us.. Where u from again? :lookie: hhhmm....how in the world did I know that there would be replies bordering on insulting to my post?...oh yeah, because the world is full of hypocrites who claim to want knowledge yet reject anything they dont' feel safe about and feel the need to belittle something that takes a bit of faith. odd how Christians are the ones who are considered "closeminded" when we are as quickly rejected just for our base views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crowbar November 2, 2003 Share Crowbar Member November 2, 2003 It was mentioned a couple posts up that if you take the book of Revelations literally, it "leads to all kinds of problems." I'd like to know what these problems are. I believe Revelations can be taken literally. Why believe in God if he's not all powerful? And if you believe he's all powerful, then there isn't much of a stretch to believe that he has created things not imagined on earth. And if one believes in angels, then naturally there are demons as well. And if there are angels and demons, it is natural to believe that they are even now waging real war around us. The Bible talks about some heavenly beings that are beyond outlandish. Like the creatures that spend eternity doing nothing but worshipping at the feet of God, creatures covered in eyes, all over their body, with wings to cover their head and their feet. Many things in the Bible are far beyond what today's fantasy writers would consider plausible. But who are we to say what God can/can't do? If we do that, God becomes nothing more than one of the Olympians, who's behaviour is changed everytime another poet writes about his deeds, a god who can be tricked, or even fought with and chased away by man. Or worse yet, we make God into a little wooden figurine, carved by our own hands. What power is there in that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auggybendoggy November 2, 2003 Share auggybendoggy Member November 2, 2003 playya I dont read watch as being insulting. I think he's coming from the walk by sight view. I think it only could be fair for christians (of which I am one) to answer the questions as best as possible. This thread was started concerning doubt. Do you not doubt? If so express it. Thomas was better off expressing it then hiding it. I don't know how to answer some of the questions of doubt but I have them. I have my doubts of many issues in the scriptures as to a hardline fundamental view. Let me take the position of a un-bevliever for a minute. It would seem invalid to me to argue as to the truth of the scriptures concerning the actual events and their history. If one is to say I believe in the flood...just look at the grand canyon...look at nature (atoms, molecules, dna, quantum physics, nature proves God's existence) than that one has built a system of belief upon science (what you see and touch). But If that same one is asked to explain frozen ancients (seem to be monkey like men) or fossils of dinosaurs and that one discards such propositions then it seems that one has no true belief system. How can I preach on the truth of God to men based on molecules when I molecules confuse me about the word of God. It doens't make much sense. Watch, please don't get me wrong I'm not implying Watch is not a christian but he would be more consistent to address such issues if indeed he embraces the issues of nature and science. HE MUST. I have to side with Watch cause I hear many people preach from the pulpit about how logically and scientifically one is crazy not to believe in God. But when asked about these issues Watch brings to the table they simply say dude it just takes faith so don't count on that evidence. What evidence can Watch count on then? What evidence can anyone count on? The HARDEST QUESTION WE ALL CAN ANSWER RELATES TO THIS SAME ISSUE. HOW DO I LOVE SOMEONE WHO I CANNOT HUG, TOUCH, KISS, CONVERSE (2 WAY), LAUGH WITH, WALK WITH, WATCH GROW, WATCH ME GROW. It's not hard for us to love our Wives or children. But to love someone who doesn't talk back to us in our natural senses makes it very difficult. So accepting anything against our natural selves requires a great amount of faith. With so much faith a man can move a mountain...and who on earth can move a mountain? We all lack this faith and thats why we can simply look to God, beat our chest, and cry out Forgive me God! Thank Jesus for dying for us! So with all that said I think its fair for Watch to ask such a question also concerening revelation. I didn't say the whole thing is literal. But if you want one how bout a beast rising out of the sea having 7 heads 10 horns. Is that not symbolic? My reference is not that Genesis is symbolic therfore God did not create man. NO rather I simply mean that God did create man but perhaps we misunderstand it just like no one understand the mark of the beast "for let he who hath understanding rekon the number of the beast, for it is mans number 666" Go ahead tell us all what it means. I don't think anyone alive knows what it means so if you throw that lame answer "uh the upc code on campbells soup" then I'll just laugh!!! IM OUT! Auggybendoggy also if I offended anyone don't be, I'm as unlearned as anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwOOp November 2, 2003 Share SwOOp Member November 2, 2003 I reckon it could be possible for a beast to rise out of the sea having seven heads and ten horns. I mean with all the waste and toxins that get dumped, mutation is not an uncommon thing. So wouldn't one find it funny that ultimately WE are the ones that would cause the end times, fulfilling what was prophesized? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwEEziL November 2, 2003 Share dwEEziL Member November 2, 2003 I typically read Revelations as this...if it is written in literal terms, it is to be taken literally, if the wording is figurative in nature, then figuratively. Pretty simple said but not so easy in practice. But the main reason Revelations is so difficult to interpret is because it is of things yet to come while the majority of the Bible was referencing past events. This is an interesting thread and I soooo wish I had more time to read it and thoroughly respond but I don't at the time. Here is a few snippets I read and would like to respond to. Not all serious Christians believe the earth is ~10K years old (I personally do though). There is several veins of thought that believe that the "days" in Genesis refer to "ages" or "periods of time" each lasting thousands of years themselves. I don't believe this myself because the Hebrew word used for "day" in Genesis literally means a sun up/sun down cycle. Other arguments can be made that either 1) a cycle of a day wasn't necessarily the same length as it is now or 2) since there was no sun or sun up/sun down cycle at the time (see, God was creating all that at the time), the current time restraints were not necessarily in effect yet. Again, this is very likely one of these things we will never know for certain until we are in His presence. Another belief is that the "day" is a true sun up/sun down cycle but that there was an "age" that took place in between each "day" so that, yes, it literally was "the first day" but the "second day" wasn't the next following day. It occurred thousands of years later. Very similar to the "ages" thought but yet still holding to the literal "day" belief. I personally believe God made everything in 6 literal, consecutive sun up/sun down cycles. Might seem unrealistic, but I believe my God is more than capable to do such a feat. Also, the fact that God rested on the 7th day is not an indicator that He was tired or needed to recharge. It is and indication that His work was done. He had completed the work of Creation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crowbar November 2, 2003 Share Crowbar Member November 2, 2003 I believe man can move mountains with a single command. God probably won't give the power to do it if you're just showing off. But if you believe without a doubt that God will move that mountain (and yes, I mean literal mountain) and command it to be moved, than it'll move. Same with the beast, why is it so hard for us to believe in this stuff? "Cuz it can't happen." No, it CAN happen, we've just never seen anything like it happen. THAT is being closed minded! Presented with an idea that is beyond anything we've ever seen or imagined, we immediatly are against it. And thus so many people miss out on the excitment that belief in God and his abilities can give. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jane November 2, 2003 Share jane Member November 2, 2003 wow crowbar i liked what yo just said and i dont think i could add muhc to it if i tried. thank you for showing you faith in a vocal way, touching... jane | gfe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOFX November 3, 2003 Share NOFX Member November 3, 2003 (edited) I believe man can move mountains with a single command. God probably won't give the power to do it if you're just showing off. But if you believe without a doubt that God will move that mountain (and yes, I mean literal mountain) and command it to be moved, than it'll move. Same with the beast, why is it so hard for us to believe in this stuff? "Cuz it can't happen." No, it CAN happen, we've just never seen anything like it happen. THAT is being closed minded! Presented with an idea that is beyond anything we've ever seen or imagined, we immediatly are against it. And thus so many people miss out on the excitment that belief in God and his abilities can give. very true, mountains may be able to be moved. But I base my beliefs on the past, facts and sciences such as plate tectonics. It may be possible, but I have never seen it or heard of such a thing. So until such an event happens I cant say for certain its possible. Edited November 3, 2003 by NOFX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auggybendoggy November 3, 2003 Share auggybendoggy Member November 3, 2003 Moving mountains with faith the size of a mustard seed is a slap in the face. WE LACK SUCH FAITH. A problem for us Christians is that we claim the power but we cannot excercise it because it's up to the (unproven) God which we are trying to prove. While I agree with Keith Green "theres nothing I can do to prove to you that God exists except that he changed my life" I still have to say if one believes by fiath then he cannot preach science as proof of God. Seems Messy. No one can move mountains because we unlike the man who walked on water, cannot do so. The fact (for us who believe) is that while it is possible we just don't have such faith. Heak we turn to asprin to take a headache away...so much for moving mountains. As for the beast, sorry guys the angel explains to John what the Beast STANDS for meaning it aint gonna be godzilla with 7 heads and 10 horns. My point is that many people read all the bible with such literal meaning that they get mixed up. I'm not saying Revalation is full of symbolism therfore Jesus is not coming back. I'm saying be careful on how you build doctrine because its full of mysteries. Again, the bible does not say "let he who has understanding rekon the number of the beast" and then it mean a simple 666. It's deep! It means something. Like alot of the prophecy its hard to just interpret. It takes a annointed position that God places on someone. Look at the John the Baptist. All the jews were waiting for Elijah but did they recognize him. Instead it was John the B. who came and Jesus slaps them all for not recognizing him. Literally speaking you could look at luke and say what the hell are you doing saying John the Baptist was a fullfillment of Malachai. But its there so we have to deal with it. Luke put it there because John the B. was a fullfillment of the prophecy. And though he was not literally Elijah JESUS CUTS THEM NO SLACK! If you read Matt 25 LITERALLY you'll find that by being nice to people (or Isreal...another interpretation) one gets saved. Since when by deeds does one get saved? What is the sheep and the goats about? My main contention here though is that many christians try to prove God with science and then when science challenges the same person (i.e. the age of the earth, fossils, stars) people run to non-scientific methods to explain them. We cannot talk science if we are not limited to such rules. This again is why LOVE is so powerful. IT GOES WHERE KNOWLEDGE CANNOT. It is tangible and effective where knowledge is not. So if we love and do not understand all things we are well. Sincerely, Auggy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchtower November 3, 2003 Share Watchtower Member November 3, 2003 I personally believe God made everything in 6 literal, consecutive sun up/sun down cycles. Might seem unrealistic, but I believe my God is more than capable to do such a feat. Also, the fact that God rested on the 7th day is not an indicator that He was tired or needed to recharge. It is and indication that His work was done. He had completed the work of Creation. There is no reason to look at this any other way. God Is all powerfull and could have done it all in One day if he wanted to. Why make it last thousands of years if you're God? In my opinion is that "watering down" effect on the literalism of the bible that gets me. Some people aren't literal at all in their interpretation, then some people Are! People speak in tongues, handle snakes because they can Talk to God.! That is not how Auggy describes the fact that you can't communicate, touch and interact(2-way) with God! Why don't All christians adopt these beliefs and Really talk to God.. You think those people are crazy don't u "I believe man can move mountains with a single command. God probably won't give the power to do it if you're just showing off. But if you believe without a doubt that God will move that mountain (and yes, I mean literal mountain) and command it to be moved, than it'll move. Same with the beast, why is it so hard for us to believe in this stuff? "Cuz it can't happen." No, it CAN happen, we've just never seen anything like it happen. THAT is being closed minded! Presented with an idea that is beyond anything we've ever seen or imagined, we immediatly are against it. And thus so many people miss out on the excitment that belief in God and his abilities can give." Ok, Man has Never moved a mountain with a single command. And I bet some of the stongest believers Ever have tried! With prayers and whatever else. People that all they did was believe! It just don't happen like that. FUn to think about(kinda like superman), but very impractical and pointless. We don't need to move mountains. We need to solve population problems, food and disease problems... Differences in belief systems causing major death and destruction.. Small hurdles, not mountains. I guess I could sit around and think of Everything I could do If God let me do it.. Seems a bit of a waste of time to me and I doubt anyone really does this. "I could reach my hand through the side of my head". lol Wouldn't that be cool? And for the record, I wasn't trying to be inflammitory.. I've held Tons of comments back believe me.. I'm just trying to ask some specific questions I have. I don't think any less of anyone for believing what they believe. I undertand belief systems of all sorts and know why they are subscribed to. I just haven't talked to too many "Devout" christians in my lifetime face to face and am curious in the thought processes involved. I should be a psycologist. I am so intrigued with why we do and think the things we do. I would like to see this conversation continue in a productive manner.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jane November 3, 2003 Share jane Member November 3, 2003 (edited) "very true, mountains may be able to be moved. But I base my beliefs on the past, facts and sciences such as plate tectonics. It may be possible, but I have never seen it or heard of such a thing. So until such an event happens I cant say for certain its possible" ---NOFX . I dont know about you, but I'm a geology major and if you had taken any classes besides geo100 in college or in high school, you'd know that plate tectonics is a theory only about 50 years old, and just a theory, not a law(wrong word, its not a fact its would be a law). My biggest beef with this whole arguement(besides the fact that I ALWAYS get too heated) is when people from both sides of the debate use scientific "facts" to support their points. There is no irrifutable evidence for plate tectonics since we cant even see them. We can observe how they move and use those observations to judge where they will move to next(based on the assumtion that they exist). We also assume many things from this theory(which as my professors and textbooks say is one of the weakest theorys in geology) such as molten mantle/ upper core, solid core. We use these assumptions(which can NEVER become law becasue we will never be able to see this in action) to further back other assumptions such as the eath is cooling(molten mantle slowly cooling to make crust) and that the earth is many billions of years old(showing various ablsolute-age dating methods' weaknesses as justifiable by the melting of the lowwer crust and the hardening of the upper mantle). Im not going to make this a scientific aregument because I dont have the time. But to refute what you said, look to laws, not theorys. Though many theorys are as close to law as possible. There are actually very few laws out there. Cause and Effect. Logical Fact/Scientific Law. When you look at the list of scientific theorys we all believe in, then look to the list of scientific laws, you will find a dramatic difference between the proofs of each kind. OK. IM done. Just saw that commment and had to drop in my little voice. I really dont appreciate people using false data for debates. One: it biases the debate, Two: it makes the user look foolish when proven wrong(which is never good because they get defensive and harsh), Three: it makes the prover look like a jerk(I look like a flamer of you post, but i really just want to leyt you know and the rest who read this post that you mistated a scientific theroy for a law). I have no harsh feeling towards you NOFX, i just wanted to set the record straight. Law:Everything goes wrong(2nd LAW of Thermodynamics), Law:What goes up must come down(LAW of Gravitation), Law:Energy is Constant(1st LAW of thermodynamics) Law: what is moving will keep moving unless something else acts upon it(1st LAW of Inertia), blah blah blah(just wondering if you're still paying attention) Im done now jane | gfe Edited November 3, 2003 by jane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchtower November 3, 2003 Share Watchtower Member November 3, 2003 Plate tectonics.. Ok, take two ucooked pizza crusts. lay them flat and push them together.. This is plate tectonics. And the theory is older than 50 years.. science in general is still in it's adolescence really.. When did we invent the microscope? Colds and sickness were caused by demons and bad spirits before that.. because that's in our "not so distant" past, does that still make that theory real? Fault lines cause earthquakes.. THese things are moving.. Not a debate in my book.. http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/developing.html 1620 - Sir Francis Bacon observed that the continents looked like a big jigsaw puzzle. <-- he was on to something way back then.. 1912 - Alfred Wegner was the first scientist to suggest that the continents were moving. The PROOF that the seafloor was spreading was based on two discoveries. First -- The farther away from the center of the ridge -- the older the rock! Diagram of Sea Floor Spreading Second -- Because the MAGNETISM of the poles has changed direction 9 known times, new rocks, made of Iron during these time periods, would point in the direction of the magnetic pole as the rocks were formed and cooled. This should leave a MAGNETIC MAP that would be the same on both sides of the RIDGE -- It did! Heres something I found on the net.. Quoted. "The concept "law of science" is an inheritance from the earliest days of science when it was believed that the universe operated in the way it did because God established natural laws which dictated how things should act. Of course, everything but humans followed these laws, and so the movement of objects could be accurately predicted simply by coming to better understand the laws created by God. In this way, science in its infancy was very close to theology. Over time, the premise of a "lawgiver" who established the workings of nature was abandoned in favor of a naturalistic position. The concept of "laws of science" or "natural laws," however, remained - it had become a standard means of expression which stuck like a bad habit. We can still see it today used in textbooks to refer to basic principles of how nature works. One common means of explaining the continued use of this concept is to say that it refers to broad and general regularities in the behavior of matter and/or energy which occur over a wide ranges of space and time and which have been observed so many times that future changes are no longer given much consideration. This is plausible in theory, but problematic in practice. If we look through, say, a physics textbook to examine how the terms "law" and "theory" are actually used, we won't find that the above criteria are the deciding factor. Instead, we simply find that "law" is used with regularities which were discovered a long time ago while "theory" is applied to regularities discovered much more recently. That's why we have "Newton's first law of motion" rather than "Newton's first theory of motion" and "Einstein's special theory of relativity" rather than "Einstein's special law of relativity." Perhaps it would be preferable if the term "law" were abandoned entirely - it certainly aids and abets those who are under the mistaken impression that science continues to operate under the premise of a lawgiver directing the events in nature. Unfortunately, such a change is unlikely - there is simply too much momentum from tradition and history preventing it." It's still an easy argument to try to make.. Don't work tho.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auggybendoggy November 3, 2003 Share auggybendoggy Member November 3, 2003 watch can you tell me in simpler terms what that all means. I bevlieve I understand it but am a little unclear to its point here. It seems to say that law sort of forms a box on things. The law giver is a vauge term used from the past where science being in its infancy cannot claim FACTS but rather theories. If this is the case then progression would or should not allow us to use the term law or law giver. correct me if I am wrong. I'm not that strong a swimmer (quoted by martin short on saturday night live). Auggy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchtower November 3, 2003 Share Watchtower Member November 3, 2003 Sure, progression Should allow the term "law" or "law giver".. Basically what it's saying is in its infancy, Science was alot like theology. Absolutes were being drawn ie; "laws" and the like. After many years much is a given. you prove the laws over a wider range of time and the future observances aren't given as much consideration.. They are there, and excepted but.. That's nitpicking. Society is much different now as well.. Discoveries in that day were Significant as a first glimpse into what was really going on.. Heck now we just cracked the human genome and it was no big deal.. Are they talking about wirting new "laws" accordingly? I'm sure there is a process, looks like it just takes time and significance.. Man playing God.. Now Thats a revelation! But anyhow.. yeah does that make sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auggybendoggy November 3, 2003 Share auggybendoggy Member November 3, 2003 and so your point in mentioning this is that it this... It seems a bit difficult to say evolution is impossible (science) when we don't understant science. It is in its infance and just as we thought the world was flat years ago, we think mutation or other things might be poss. If I'm wrong please make the point and how it relates to what was stated concerning plate tech. and things like that. I think I'm following but I tend to have a hard time understanding the more complicated writings. I read a doctorate once from dan fuller (son of the founder of fuller seminary) and it was imposs. to read. You had to be a Doctor or lawyer to understand the book. While George Ladd was a simple read. Sincerely, Auggy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jane November 3, 2003 Share jane Member November 3, 2003 ok so my point in mentioning the whole law thing was not to show watchtower another thing he can pick up as a crutch of society... my point was that people misstate the facts in debates about christianity and evolution and time and such. OK Watch, so some guy in the 1600 observed the continent in jigsaw form. Wegner did not form a thoery fomr his observations either. My statement was as such"the hteroy has only been around for about 50 years". And it has. No question about that. People have noticed things about the earths shape and land formations, but no one has(1960's actually when Alfred Holmes idea was elaborated on by Deitz('61) and Hess('62) to become almost thoery) made it to theory. So my point was: dont misstate scientific laws/facts/theories, its stupid. Not that your point following mine was not valid(law infers lawgiver, shouldnt society be beyond that?). But it had nothing to do with my point. And please dont assume you will, by surfing the web, overthrow the education I've recieved so far. Now dont get me wrong, im not finished but i dont feel its very becoming of you to flame my nonscientific lingo(i could speak that way if you wanted). So from here on out, im staying out of this arguement because its a fruitless arguement that will not show proof of reality until Jesus returns and shows the world the truth. "but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong" 1 corinthians 1:27 jane | gfe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auggybendoggy November 3, 2003 Share auggybendoggy Member November 3, 2003 I've heard good a good argument in my critical thinking class that was quite persuasive. The theory of the continets being together was based on tides and erosion and that if you take a large piece of land and run water in it with pools and the water continously moves it will eventually shape both sides to fit the movements. Now its on a small scale so no one knows for sure if this is true on a large scale. However it did purpose a curious thought. To believe that the continents were all connected means there was one plateau and one valley. Strange cause other celestial bodies don't follow the same pattern. Why should there have been one plateau. Well anyways, it made me think and actually I now doubt the one continent theory. I don't doubt they move but because they move does not mean they were all perhaps there were 50 continents and many and have now met??? So moving on to the subject of doubt. Sometimes I pray and while I'm praying I think...am I just talking to myself, convinced in my mind that someones there. anyone else go through this? Auggy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crowbar November 3, 2003 Share Crowbar Member November 3, 2003 ease up people, no need to get riled. this is a discussion of viewpoints, not a flaming war. my point about moving the mountains, was simply that I believe it CAN be done. contrary to you, watchtower, I don't believe any of the strongest Christians have tried. It's only the foolish ones who want superman powers that would try. And that's not having faith, it's hoping for something you don't need. As you said, there is no need to move mountains. But suppose one was in my way, and I couldn't get around it or over it, then yes, I believe if I had complete faith in God (and yes, auggy, it is possible to have that much faith) then I don't see why he wouldn't move that mountain for me. But you're right, there is no need for us to go around moving mountains. However, if God has given his people (Christians) the power to do something as amazing as moving mountains, or parting a sea, or walking on water, then we have no excuse to not do the smaller things, like healing sick or lame people. As for what auggy said about God not being proven... I have trouble with your viewpoints when you state you are a Christian, and then limit God to only what can be proven by our human minds. You say God has not proven himself, yet what were all those miracles that Jesus did? Who allowed the Israelites fresh out of Egypt with no knowledge of warfare, to conquer all the military might of Canaan? For that matter, who brought the Israelites out of Egypt? Is the Bible simply farie tales to you? If that's the case, why believe any of it? If your god can't do anything for you that you or other humans can't do, why bother with him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now